Wikipedia Igorberger Mediation
I have been editing Wikipedia for 9 months now. Recently I have been blocked and now undergoing mediation process on my talk page. If you want to see the inner working of Wikipedia I welcome you to come take a look at Wikipedia.
I think it will be a very interesting experience and will shed some light on the Dark Side of Wikipedia.
Community ban - indef block with mediation mentoring
Mediation moved from my talk page to the mediating admin page because it caused wikidrama same like at ANI
Cloacked Igorberger and Wikipedia Mediation
Mediating Admin attempting to fix the mediation process (temporary deleted)
I am only allowed to post on my talk page.
Wikipedia mediation process is experiencing a breakdown!
Wikipedia and Igorberger
If you have advice as to Wikipedia and would like to share it with me and the other guests of this blog please post it here.
Thank you,
Igor
April 18th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Nice blog. I’ll take a look at your mediation. But why were you blocked? What is the ostensive, official reason, and what do you think is the real reason? Often times both answers don’t exactly match.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Hey Gio, nice of you to come by to my little corner of the Internet world. Gio is an editor on Wikipedia same as me. Maybe one needs to be an editor to be able to comment objectively on Wikipedia. I was hoping some regular folks would comment on this posts, but looks like no takers. But now that Gio has commented maybe others will wade in on the Mystery of Wikipedia.
What is Wikipedia?
Why does an editor gets blocked on Wikipedia?
How does the community engage a blocked editor?
Gio I think before we examine reason for having me blocked on Wikipedia from official point of you, from your point of you, and from my point of you, I would like the visitors to this blog to chime in on what is this all about.
So let’s see where these goes.
Thank you,
Igor
April 18th, 2008 at 5:02 am
My friend who is a social media consultant said this, “Igor - wikis can be funny places. Similar in some respects to places such as resource-zone or any other place ran by people who are paranoid about being ‘gamed’ in some way.”
Is this what Wikipedia has become? A paranoid online virtual-community?
My friend a professional journalist said “Igor - you are playing in somebody else’s back yard at wikipedia, and they have their rules. I research and reference and document my posts. I fight a lonely battle against ignorance, prejudice and the mass media duped masses. To make my points I must back them up. The blog world is full of disinformation, spies, and hacks that will attack you and tear up your stuff once you become popular. Opinions are only as good as the documentation behind them. Like the man said at wikipedia … short, concise statements backed up and referenced. You have your own way of doing things. If you must then do it in your own backyard. Do not expect to get anywhere on somebody else’s territory. You are just a fly on the camels back. And now you know what happens!”
April 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Hi Igor,
I have been sitting here reading up on all this for the past hour, and trying to understand just what is going on here. What I think the problem is that I don’t know that much about Wikipedia, or just how it works. I go there every once in awhile, just to look something up, and don’t know the inner workings of the area. I am not a editor or journalist for Wikipedia. Actually, I am a creative writer, of short stories, poetry, and sometimes journals. You definitely got me beat!
However, by what I am reading, I am thinking that your being blocked, seems to be a mistake, or a misunderstanding by some that didn’t appreciate your point of view. I don’t believe it matters what your point of view is, you shouldn’t be muffled, blocked, or punished for your point of view. It seems to be a of a stiff penalty being “blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia’s blocking policy for As per discussion at your latest ANI thread”.
What I need to do is read up on this more, and then come back, and make another comment. Also, there seems to be more noise in my apartment than usual, such as a dog barking, whimpering, and whining, my cousin’s mouth running, and my Personal Attendant’s mouth going too..LOL!
I read this on one of the pages I looked at: “I feel I got blocked because I stood up to defend a few controversial articles from mass deletion.” When articles become controversial, it makes it very hard to edit them, because I believe that your own point of view gets involved. Igor, you stated this: “I was hoping some regular folks would comment on this posts, but looks like no takers.” Well, here I am trying to talk about, and comment on, something I know nothing about.
LOL!
I did that because you asked me to, and you were nice enough to comment on my blog. Although, I feel your far above anything I write, because I am a creative writer, and not an editor. I also haven’t had much of a chance to write much about what I have wanted to…although I do have some drafts going…so hoping soon there will be more there to read for everyone.
I do, however, find the picture you chose quite appropriate for this Blog. Yes, Wikipedia is a lot larger than you, or any of the editors there, to do whatever they think should be done. And, I am NOT saying they are right, because after reading everything I have so far, I don’t believe they are right, but that is only my opinion. And, sometimes opinions mean absolutely nothing!
All I know, I find this quite fascinating, and informative from my point of view. Hmmm…now what to do?? Maybe I should join Wikipedia myself, and find out just what happens.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Skye B, I thank you very much for your comment and your opinion as a writer is highly valued. If you have time please watch this video that will reveal to you more about what Wikipedia is about.
The Truth According to Wikipedia
Oh yes, becoming an editor at Wikipedia and seeing for yourself what it is, is a very objective way to learn what Wikipedia really is.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I am participating in discussion on TechCrunch about online encyclopedia.
This is what I said:
Chinese and Italian noodle debacle
April 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Who is trying to social engineer Wikipedia? According to BBC one of the special interest groups that is involved in distorting information on Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda, is
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency of United States of America.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia ’shows CIA page edits’
April 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
There is more! Using this special scanner tool
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ you can find which range of IP’s have edited which articles. There is also an ability to select a special interest group or a corporation and its IP range will be provided. CIA IP range use to be in the tool, but was taken out.
I guess CIA does not play nice.
Give the tool a twirl and see who is manipulating Wikipedia!
Wikipedia has become the world’s best propoganada machine!
Even New York Times is up in arms with Wikipedia!
Stories by New York Times reporters criticizing Wikipedia
April 20th, 2008 at 12:51 am
How does a good article, which is considered undesirable by a special interest group gets deleted?
It gets deleted, by a technique of oxygen deprivation. In layman terms suffocation! A new editor comes to a new article and bullies other established editors by inserting frivolous material or material that is to contradict and discredit establish facts in the article. Another way is to tag the article unencyclopedic original research or synthesis. All these techniques are done to weaken the notability of the article. As time passes the same editor will also attempt to delete notable referenced facts that support the article. The article dwindled down to pathetic and unencyclopedic state. At this stage the same editor will nominate the article for deletion.
During the deletion review process the editor will argue that the article is a point of view not neutral point of view, it is not encyclopedic, original research, polemic and just needs to be deleted. The same editor may enlist other editor to manipulate the deletion process – called meatpuppets in his favor, or may use an alternative account – called sockpuppet account to help him sway the popular opinion.
Once the atmosphere has been tilted towards deletion the masses will jump on the bandwagon and a closing admin will delete the article.
This is called Death by Consensus – I call it Death by Ignorance and Manipulation.
Welcome to Wikipedia were everyone can edit.
A little parody of the Wikipedian deletion process
April 20th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Igor, I read your stuff on this post here and one sentence cauth my eye..: “Wikipedia to survive needs to…….”
As always, just my opinion, ..: It was created by men, not by The Lord, so if it becomes just a platform for anybodys’ propaganda, Who needs for it to Survive???? I surely don’t. There is a plenty sources of informations of all kinds about all kinds of things and all we need is to Use our Own Brain to make an opinion on everything we find..
Just a thought, but personally from me : ” GO GET THEM…”
Nice journey….TOMAS
April 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Tomas, I always welcome you rational and pithy words. Yes I agree that the world will not come to the end, if Wikipedia falls of its axis, but if there is anything that can be done to fix the problem I would like it to happen.
I joined Wikipedia as a volunteer because I like helping people. There are some nice people there, but they are being driven away. I am not the first person criticizing Wikipedia, and I am sure I will not be the last.
Have a read at this post by Rand Fishkin from SEOmoz about the Dark side of Wikipedia. I actually started editing Wikipedia because of this post.
Again this is not about me. If they will let me edit again or not is irrelevant, but I as a concerned Netizen I will speak my mind either way!
April 21st, 2008 at 4:00 am
Hey Igor, gee does your blog get a lot of comments. Greetings from New York. Our blogs almost sound alike. Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:55 am
He, he! Must be because I lived in New York for 20 years. I love your blog. Peace Girl!
April 21st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Long live Igor!
Keep on pressing on my little, green digital activist.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Ryan thanks Brother!
That is what we are all about! Just in Your Face Bloggers.
They want to Shut us Up, but we just get Stronger and Stronger!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:01 am
passion + emotion = human
May 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Concerned editor: I don’t know what the answer is; it may very well be that there is no answer. but I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that articles like anti-Americanism, waterboarding, etc. simply cannot be edited in an “anyone can edit anonymously” environment. Period. My own, personal solution is I don’t go near articles like that. Obviously if all rational people did that, things would be even worse; the loons on both sides of the issue would have free rein. But I’m editing here because I enjoy it, and I guarantee I wouldn’t enjoy wading into that. The talk page is incomprehensible to someone joining in for the first time. Edit wars break out every five minutes. Aside from putting a big banner at the top of the page that says “This article attracts lunatics from both sides of the dispute, and is highly unlikely to be fair, accurate, or neutral at any given moment”, I don’t know what to do.
The wikipedia model is fantastic for growing content quickly. It’s fantastic for getting great articles on uncontroversial subjects. It’s fantastic for people of all opinions to edit together, IF they all have the goal of creating an NPOV article, and their only true interest is seeing that all sides get treated reasonably and fairly. It’s terrible medium for creating an article when there are a few people who want their own POV to be treated more favorably. Then, I don’t think any amount of consensus-building discussion, or dispute resolution, or arbitration, or anything, is going to make the article good. Quite literally, one smart and determined POV warrior, as long as they are civil, can destroy an article for months. Then, when they’ve finally made it to ArbCom and get banned, they can create another account, or have a friend take over.
from what little, tiny bit I know, this may be what’s happening with editor-x. I would not be at all surprised. But you can’t kick someone off for what editor-x is doing right now; and (as you’ve found out) you can get in trouble yourself for making this too much about personalities. I’m sure you thought what you were doing was helping, but in the Wikipedia editing environment, we can’t have someone constantly attacking someone else, even if they’re right about it. In fact, by making it even more about “them vs. us”, you might have made the problem worse.
In the end, I could see a model like Wikiinfo working, where each side tries to create an article that shows their own POV in the best light possible. then, people are collaborating again. But as it is not, Wikipedia can’t handle that kind of dispute. i don’t have a solution.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Mark O’Neill has written an excellent article on The
Wikipedia Thought Police.
Wikipedia is being used to control minds and influence society with distorted information!
May 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ah! Finally came across your blog on the 6th page of my SERPs.
I think that I would rather be banned for an entire year, then get an indefinite block. That is like being locked up on the U.S. Marine base in Cuba indefinitely.
Gee, come to think of it. I have been banned for the 4th, time. And, I am loving it!!!
You are in limbo, Igor. Good luck.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Ha, I was wondering when you will come around! And I am sorry you could not find me in Google, I guess Google does not Like me!
I am not worried about Wikipedia, too busy with other projects to even care! I mean it was nice to be able to volunteer your time in energy to contribute to the process of building unbiased knowledge for everyone to reference, but it is very time consuming and there are some people on Wikipedia who are counterintuitive to this noble cause! They care more about distorting and manipulating knowledge for their alternative agenda to social engineer society into unquestionable obedience.
They just want everyone to follow them like dumb sheeep to the slaughter house!
I spent 9 months editing Wikipedia and it is time to move on. I am sure other noble individuals will pick up the torch!