Wikiality, pt 3

Wikipedia, bastion of dogma. They refer to their Five Pillars as the source of all law, but when loopholes and inconsistencies in the manifestation of the Five Pillars are pointed out, they’re ignored or dismissed– or the person who mentioned them is invited to join the wiki, and really understand. They care about all the pages except for the ones where they don’t. Their inconsistency in application of principles is astounding. is up and running but it needs a hand. Maybe even a stern hand. I created a page at wikipedia as ‘Wiki Reality’. Its text was as follows:

The enterprise known as ‘wiki reality’ or wikiality is not supported by Wikipedia. If you wish to further explore the concept of wiki reality, please redirect your efforts towards a site created for that purpose:

Deleted before I could finish my comment on its talk page about the wikiality server’s future potential bandwidth problems. Not only deleted, but I’ve been chastized.

Wikipedia: as true as the internet, but religious about it. Convert or die.

Published by


I used to be at, but flakiness is one of my primary traits, and the domain expired. Apparently it was popular enough to be snatched up!

6 thoughts on “Wikiality, pt 3”

  1. I remember someone (I can’t remember who, but I have the vague feeling it may have been mentioned on Neil Gaiman’s blog) talking about how their name was spelled incorrectly on some press release and so someone changed their name on Wikipedia. He went to Wikipedia and tried to change it citing the fact that he knows how to spell his own name and someone reverted it back citing the erroneous press release /and/ that you can’t be your own source for information. Just….wacky and fucked up.

    Huh. I found this
    but not the situation I’m remembering so perhaps I made it all up. I don’t think I did…

    Anyway, looking at some of the stuff about the whole Colert Report thing, it looks totally cliqueish and humorless and a little sad. Ah, well, now that we’ve stopped hearing quite so much about the OS Religious War, we need something new and stupid to fight about.

  2. Ah, but you see, something can only be added to Wikipedia if it’s “noteworthy”, where noteworthiness is defined by…er…is it defined? (For instance, see if you can convince me that Noteworthy is noteworthy.) I suppose it’s sort of defined variously on the website, but not very clearly.

  3. Truth is never an easy thing to hear.
    To defend it can cost you.
    I was a “Christian” college … running a newspaper and the people who found me the greatest threat were the head of “Spiritual Formations” and the President of the college.

    Makes you wonder what they were hiding to fight against someone just trying to do reporting.

  4. There’s something inherently funny about the fact that Academic Challenger, who chastized you, writes of himself, “Until September 2005 I claimed to be a college student, though I was a junior in high school when I joined Wikipedia, because I thought that I would be respected less if people thought I was a high school student.” That is, his basic Wikipedia persona was a lie. Whee!

Comments are closed.