Wikipedia

Would you like to work for free, and then get thrown away like trash?
Published April 11th, 2021; Updated October 21st, 2021; Last Updated Dec 14 2021

I fucking goddamned hate Wikipedia.

Most people who hate Wikipedia, and particularly those who start crusades against it, are those who have used it, and were spurned by it. I have no such intent. I ain't startin' no crusade. The reason I'm writing this, is simple: I've simply seen way too many innocent people get fucked by it. And I would like to put my mind at ease, and lay these concerns down on some paper. This represents no such effort as to fix these problems. These problems are most likely unfixable; as they stem from the human heart.

Innocent people get fucked when they edit Wikipedia because the system is built to fuck them. That's the entire story. They get fucked by it because it's a bad system. It's a system, made out of volunteers; and, when a great majority of the volunteers with the most amount of power— or, at the very least, a few very malicious people, with a lot of power— are essentially controlling the system... well, shit, my man. What do you expect?

The human-made environment, the atmosphere that has been produced by the most-vexatious 'contributors', has resulted in the sort of human hierarchal system where the worst people tend to rise the highest in the ranks: because, the environment being what it is, the only people willing to put up with such toxicity, are toxic themselves. In short, Wikipedia is suffering from an increasingly-toxic user environment, in which the very worst users— those who needlessly, uselessly, ceaselessly quest for power— are going to be the ones who use the wiki the most. And misuse their powers, the most.

Because they're the ones best suited for the environment, that they themselves have created. And you know why they're the ones, calling the shots?

Because only a fucking idiot would work for free, for that sort of power. There are people who would, and have done so, altruistically. But they are in no way the norm.

I'm not the sort of person where this sort of quest for power makes any real sense. I don't desire power, nor do I have any real respect for hierarchal systems. And, to boot, I never wanted to be a part of Wikipedia.

When I say that I hate Wikipedia, don't get me wrong: I've always liked the project.

It's the people, that I cannot stand. The wikilawyering, especially. You know, those power-hungry dipshits who have memorized every single rule by heart, and will cite them frequently, solely to get their own way.

It is fucking exhausting dealing with those wikicunts.

Ostensibly, Wikipedia is a great idea. Were it actually manned by people who weren't dipshits, I'm sure it would be a great resource. As it stands, though, it is no "World Archive". It's not Memory Alpha, and it never will be.

Because it has a userbase problem.

Only a selfish person is going to edit Wikipedia, for long.

On the face of it, such a statement requires an explanation. So allow me to explain it.

No one without an ulterior motive is going to contribute to Wikipedia for any length of time. It's just not happening. Skilled and knowledgeable people regularly get attacked by people who are only on Wikipedia to gain, consolidate, and increase the amount of power that they have, on the wiki. This is known as 'biting' newcomers, and it's one of the leading causes of people just giving up on editing Wikipedia.

If your first thought is, 'wow; driving away knowledgeable newcomers is a tremendously fucking stupid thing to do,' congratulations. You can skip the rest of the article. That's the main point: the most-vicious, and malicious editors on Wikipedia, who also hold sufficient power, are inadvertently keeping the wiki from gaining as many skilled contributors as it could. And that's why Wikipedia's basically fucked.

There have been stories of professors who have come to Wikipedia to correct articles on incredibly-specific scientific subjects, and they've had to fight with people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject. The person who starts the fight, who has no knowledge, often wins; because they know the rules, and they can use the rules to bully their opponent off the wiki.

These 'contributors' aren't there to build a wiki. They're there for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, solely. They're there to wield power over others. And the person with the knowledge necessary to build an encyclopedia, they're not going to spend their time fighting to educate someone. They're going to leave.

Administrators on Wikipedia are the leading cause of people no longer contributing to Wikipedia. If you've been an admin on there for any length of time, you've, by necessity, become incredibly skilled at Wikipedian politics. You've learned which way the wind blows; which way the sea flows. If you didn't, you wouldn't have been able to survive long enough to become admin.

That sort of ease and skill at political craft does not seem to come naturally to most scientists. I wish it did. It doesn't fucking seem to.

People interested in only facts, are not going to always be the ones who have the tact, and political prowess enough, to disseminate such facts. And, in an editing environment as toxic as Wikipedia, where academic achievement largely means nothing, compared to just knowing how to use the rules for your own benefit, it's like trying to get the average scientist to defend themselves in court against seasoned lawyers. That shit just don't work out.

The worst part is Wikipedia needs scientists. More than anything. And, more than anything, Wikipedia's problem is that its userbase, its most-active volunteer editorship, is controlled by people who largely have nothing better to do than bully people.

Every day, a few people get banned permanently from editing Wikipedia, and the excuse used is often, 'they're not here to build an encyclopedia.'

It can be quite easily said that most of the veteran, volunteer editors, working for free, are also not there to build an encyclopedia. Many of the editors who have been there for years and years have risen to the rank of administrator; and a common complaint, is, when they rise to that rank, their output ceases, nearly completely. Obviously this can be attributed to their newfound administrative duties; but, also, it cannot be denied that the majority of their actions are pruning things from the wiki: not building it.

That is not to say that all veteran editors are bad. There's no such thing as an absolute, especially in such a large system, with so many people using it. But there are a handful of shitters. And the people who use and abuse editors, it's easy to see why they're there. Or, rather, what circumstances led them to be there.

If you've been working on a free project for over a decade, that, in and of itself, is a certain barrier over which most people are not going to be able to hurdle. That is to say, just being on the platform, and surviving, while actively contributing, means that the editor's account has survived any number of eventualities: most of these calamities being completely admin-based.

These are people who have either gotten extremely lucky... or who have learned how to play the game. And, seeing as most well-meaning editors are going to get banned in a fit of some dipshit's rage, either the first month, or the first year or so, this acts as a sieve. The people who don't get banned, they either know how to play the game, or they have come here to play the game.

In a corrupt system, innocent participants have no chance. The people who are there not to build a wiki, but to increase their own power, are bullying, have bullied, and will continue to bully those who are simply trying to help. The corrupt will push out the innocent; or, if not innocent, at least, the very well-meaning.

If the innocent, well-meaning editors are not ostracized and bullied out of the project, they will be faced with the reality that there is largely no reason for them to continue contributing. Their efforts will be removed; their work will be destroyed; and they will be belittled, for the use of their precious, finite time.

In short, the toxic environment, if it does not push people away, it provides a place for toxic people to thrive. And, in such an environment, the only people who will bother to participate will either remain just as toxic, or grow increasingly more toxic.

And that's how you got a bunch of dipshits who just sit on Wikipedia all day, looking for reasons excuses to wield their power, uselessly.

You have to have something missing in you to edit.

When I began to edit Wikipedia, I sought a community that was interested in creating nice things, and distributing them to others, for free. I liked the idea of helping others. And so, in me, was missing any semblance of the feeling of a place where I belonged.

This is oftentimes why people flock to Wikipedia. This is an oft-discussed subject, as well, because it has everything to do with user retention. Why do people edit Wikipedia? Why do they stay? Some say it's 'wikilove'; a term as disgusting as any newspeak. But, what they mean to say by that, is, people edit Wikipedia because they see that other people appreciate their contributions.

It doesn't take very long to see that all the work that you're doing is throwing your lifeforce, your time, all of your daily spoons' worth of energies, into a hole. Your work is greedily taken, changed, destroyed, and so on, and so forth. All living things with mind enough to care, will care when you take things from them. And, for the most part, seeing people callously destroy your hard work, on Wikipedia, is going to produce a strong negative emotional response. This is something Wikipedia has often tried to squelch.

My mentor often spoke about this sort of attempt at changing human behavior. My mentor would often argue that, if you feel that you're being used, more than likely, you probably are. And you shouldn't try to explain away that bad feeling you get. You should listen to that.

It's something that I've internalized. Part of a larger discussion— a larger, very specific situation— she once said, 'you can change your mind; you can change your socks; but you cannot, and should not, try to change your heart.' In-context of the discussion, that's what she was saying.

When you have a natural response to being hurt, you should really fucking listen to that.

Because, often, it's your body telling you you're being used.

When you edit Wikipedia, and you're insulted by someone with power— say, an admin— the culture there will tell you that you should suck it up, and continue contributing. It tells you that you should change your mind about how you feel about people on Wikipedia being a dick to you. That you should ignore your heart.

Essentially, it tells you to ignore your own feelings, for the sake of an intellectual pursuit, from which you shall never gain anything. Does that sound wise to you?

It honestly sounds like a fuckin' cult, to me. And I'll just plain come out and say it: You should never change your entire being, especially not for someone who is using you. And, when it comes to Wikipedia's culture, that's exactly what it's telling you to do.

The vast majority of people stop editing Wikipedia because they have a bad encounter or ten with a power-tripping asshole, and they have a natural, healthy, emotional response. They go, wow, that guy's an asshole, and they stop wasting their time. But, instead of Wikipedia mostly telling people that they should stop being assholes, mostly, what I've seen is that the users being assholes will tell people that their emotional responses to mistreatment are wrong, and useless, and should be ignored. Don't fall for that shit.

In effect, these people are telling you to suppress the part of you that's telling you to run, so that you can be of service to the people who are treating you like shit.

It's an unhealthy relationship. You become something for the wiki; and the wiki gives you nothing. You suppress your natural emotional responses, and you work on something for free. It's cult shit. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to work all that well; people tend to stop contributing to Wikipedia when they realize that the community largely doesn't care about them.

And, to be honest, it does not. It wants to mold normal people into a dogma— a way of thinking— a way of being, where their very existence is useful to a cause from which they will see no fruits.

It wants to change you. And it is unwilling, if not unable, to give anything back. Sometimes, not even the facade of love.

When you're on a wiki and you're editing, and you get that creepy feeling when you meet a power-tripping asshole?

Listen to that feeling.

Run, my dudes.

Wikipedia, by its very design, requires emotionlessness.

But human beings are not without emotions. The draw of contribution for many is that these people want to be told that their work is good, and meritorious— that is, worthy of praise. When ordinary people see their hard work, their time invested in and given freely to a project larger themselves, thrown away without a thought— and, most days, rejected with an insult by Wikipedia administrators, they don't come back.

A lot of people want to hear me 'both sides' things. There are not just two sides to Wikipedia. It is a lot of things; there are aspects to it which I shall not discuss. I am solely interested in its volunteer userbase, divested from the actual people in power.

Wikipedia is a strange thing. It is, indeed, the product of human goodness: an encyclopedia, given away, for free. But it is a flawed thing, married to and marred by its creators' obsessions. It is ruined and tainted by vainglory, and pedantry. It is, idiotically, a battleground, for people who have nothing better to do, to fight for imaginary powers.

It is a thing that can only exist due to human cooperation. And yet, it seems to be the breeding ground of the worst drama I've ever fucking seen.

It is thoroughly human (derogatory).

The people who use Wikipedia the most, they tend to want power. They don't care about interacting with other people, harmoniously; they only care about what they can get out of the system. It is a place for people who want power, gained not through academic and scholastic learning solely, but through political maneuvering. It is a hive of scum and villainy, as only humanity could make.

It is Humanity's child, indeed.

It's the Old Racist White Guy Convention!

Wikipedia, by its very nature, has to be the product of its creators. And some of the most-consequential editors, are just old racist white guys.

There are people in academia who contribute to Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, they seem to be sexist, racist, and, in general, xenophobic.

A lot of these people seem to have come to Wikipedia almost just as they came into academia: they fit into the atmosphere quite well, as they've optimized their very souls to fit into such a place. Emotionless (save for cold hatred and anger), they edit in order to try to mold the World according to their own views.

A popular way to keep things white is to re-inforce standards that have been put into place to keep non-whites out. Notability, for example, is often called into play when purposefully-underdocumented historical figures are being written about. Racist white men chose not to write about non-whites, and would often destroy any documentation of even their very existence, in an effort to marginalize them. These editors perpetuate this harm knowingly, by keeping people whom racists chose to erase, out of the public eye.

The racist editors keep the encyclopedia white by refusing to make exceptions for people and concepts they do not like. They will, however, most certainly make exceptions for things they do like. This is why rare, obscure, and bizarre subjects have their own pages, while non-white celebrities, and cultural topics, are shunned. They contribute within their own narrow fields of interest, while simultaneously gatekeeping the encyclopedia, keeping out everything they do not care for. At the same time, they work to keep the space hostile for people unlike they.

It's a tainted system, full of bad actors.

People often ask: Why do women not edit Wikipedia? Besides the obvious reason, that women customarily do not engage in this sort of meaningless, dumb hierachal bullshit, women are often shunned and outright banned. When sexist men have all the power, they just gatekeep all the women straight out the damn door.

Articles about women, and especially trans people, are hard to come by. Unless, of course, they're porn stars. Because the encyclopedia is the product of its contributors' interests.

Never forget that Katie Bouman, the human being who took the first picture ever of a black hole, was almost gatekept out of the encyclopedia. This is what these people are. They do this all the time, to many, many women, and to any marginalized and vulnerable person they can find.

At the same time, administrators often make articles on themselves. I've seen more than one regularly delete articles based on lack of notability, while they themselves are curating entire empires of references of themselves, on the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a place where 90% of the editors are men. It is a place where a distinctly non-human style of interaction is favored; where people make courtroom-esque arguments to one another, all fighting for the prize of winning nothing. Normies don't go here.

Wikipedia is not a nice place to contribute to. It is not a welcoming place. It is a place that demands that you change for it; and it never gives you anything in return, save for imaginary power. There's little wonder why the people who stay tend to be malicious.

Wikipedia, by definition, needs normal people to contribute to it, for free. Or else, the system does not work. The encyclopedia breaks down. And so, because Wikipedia is an eternal baby, this thing that will never mature, never be able to defend itself, never be able to do anything for itself, it requires constant caretakers, who are unpaid. And, in exchange, its caretakers will be given power. This does not attract people who have Wikipedia's best interests in mind. It attracts people who want to be despots.

As people age, I've found that they grow weirder. Time warps and otherwise corrupts people. In Wikipedia's case, it's... hellish. It is a place people use selfishly, in some vain attempt to solely increase their own social capital. And it grows more cloistered every day; more inaccessible, unapproachable, and unfriendly, to the normal people that are required to keep it alive.

I don't think it's out of the ordinary or unreasonable to feel fuckin' sorry for the Wikimedia Foundation. Especially at this point.

Let's get bullied on the Internet!

You ever get in an Internet Fight? Just get into the worst, least-productive bad faith 'argument' you've ever borne witness to?

Well, welcome to fucking Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, it's not about what's 'right,' or what's 'just'. Or even what's sensible. No, it's about what the rules can be twisted to say. And, most of the time, people can very easily twist the rules to keep anything they want out of the fucking wiki.

A lot of this behavior is used to keep non-white celebrities out of Wikipedia. Given that millions of people in India speak English, lots of Indian people have chosen to spend their valuable time contributing to Wikipedia. The old white guys don't like that.

I've never seen such institutionalized racism, laid bare. They're not even shy about it.

You want to know what Wikipedia is like? Just remember that it's, by and large, a product of its editors. And 90% of them on the English version of the encyclopedia are guys. There is a malaise of horniness and background anger, just the worst kind of smug whiteness I've ever seen, that makes Wikipedia feel just as grimy as a BBS, or Usenet. It's like stepping into a Nazi bar.

A lot of the dumber shit on Wikipedia is grandfathered in, simply because nobody cares to argue about removing things they actually like. So you get articles about obscure BBS software, and an entire project on Pornography; but articles about famous Indian actresses, or most female scientists? Shitcanned. Almost every goddamn time.

The problem with Wikipedia is that the rules are never used to include people. They are always used to exclude. They are always used to make the encyclopedia more-restrictive, for absolutely no reason.

We're not writing in a big book with a limited amount of pages, dipshits. Think.

Notability, especially, has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. It's simply there as a measure of whether or not the Wikipedian with the most power has a wildcard reason to delete the article.

Let's play pretend in an Internet court room!

I love women. It is not a sexual interest, but a spiritual one. I've seen women get short shrift my entire life. I strive for fairness and parity in everything, and I wish to uplift women wherever I go.

The first time I realized the reality of this World, how women are treated by men, is when I was about five years old. I was in my parents' car, in the backseat, right passenger side. And I looked into a law office, and saw a man, the lawyer, slap his wife so hard that she fell down to the floor.

That put me in a mood.

I've never stopped being angry, since then. And, when it comes to Wikipedia, all I see are useless fuckheads slapping women down.

Only a small fraction of all the biographies on Wikipedia are of women. This is not by mistake. Men, in the past, have avoided documenting women, especially in the same way that men's pursuits have been extensively documented. Sexist men have worked to marginalize women. As such, there aren't a great wealth of sources to cite for a lot of women, especially before 1900.

Every asshole dude on Wikipedia uses this as a reason to keep historical profiles of women out of the encyclopedia. They just work to enforce the same evils that their forefathers committed.

As I just said, this isn't a big book where what we're all writing in it is going to take up too much space. There is absolutely no danger of libel when we're talking about dead people. There's no fucking reason to keep historical accounts of women out of the encyclopedia. None.

The worst men on Wikipedia work tirelessly to keep writing women out of history, and I'm fucking sick of it.

At the same time, these same assholes work tirelessly to keep Indian women out of the wiki. Somebody needs to tell you shitheads that it's not your wiki. There are over 100 million people in India who speak English. Get over yourselves. They have just as much of a claim to the wiki as you do.

Also, get used to other people you don't like, speaking 'your' language. There is fast-coming a day where there are more speakers of English outside of 'the West' than there are inside of it. And I'll relish that day.

I memorized 10,000 webpages just to win this fight.

The main problem with Wikipedia, and the reason why I will never edit it again, is that the vast majority of the people with power are cunts who have memorized every single rule, and are willing to waste everybody's time, trying to twist any specification they can into a 'win' for themselves. I don't have time for this shit.

Nobody has time for this shit. In the real world, in the U.S., at least, this sort of semantic pedantry is called vexatious litigation. It's shit that goes against the spirit of the rules. It's shit that no reasonable person would ever put up with; but that's what Wikipedia runs on. Stupid bullshit.

This sort of vexatious rule-citing and 'wikilawyering' (an actual term) has created an environment that I, a thing that can thrive in the emotional equivalent of a superfund site, cannot fucking tolerate.

Most people who use Wikipedia religiously must have stomach ulcers the size of lunar craters.

There's a good reason why a lot of rules are made. Sometimes, you have a dipshit who does something so bad that you realize that there obviously needs to be a rule prohibiting it. But no person who values their time is going to put up with all this nonsense. Nobody with any sense is going to internalize all of Wikipedia's rules. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.

The end result is that normal people leave. They leave, and never come back. And when they never come back, who the fuck are you going to get to help you with this shit?

And the planning of a jape.

There are a few people who think that I'm an innocent little cherubim. I'm not: I'm fairly mischevious.

I originally started to use Wikipedia again (after an almost one-and-a-half decade absence), because, I wanted to make an article on myself. I had the tools; I have the talent. But I ended up not doing it. And why?

Because someone on there was nice to me.

First and foremost, I get the allure of trying to waste your life, building this thing. But if you're going to, I implore you to reconsider. Don't do it. Take up another hobby. There's no future in this one. There's not even temporary happiness!

For me, I used Wikipedia as an attempt to understand human beings. In point of fact, I think nearly my entire use of the Internet has been in attempt of that. I enjoy figuring out puzzles, and human beings are basically just gigantic puzzles. They're so fucked up.

As I just said, my original attempt to use Wikipedia, this latest time around, was because I had a secret plan to make a page on myself. It wasn't because I thought I was deserving of it; it was because I thought it was necessary, to generate a Google Knowledge Panel. It wasn't; and, ultimately, because at least one person was nice to me, it didn't feel right to ostensibly make the place worse with my presence.

It was because somebody posted a picture of a plate of cookies, on my talk page. That was it. All I needed was some sign of good will, and I just couldn't fuck anything up for the people working on Wikipedia.

Ultimately, it's easier than you think.

You shouldn't make your own Wikipedia page. First and foremost, you shouldn't because the people who patrol Biographies of Living People on Wikipedia are pedantic little shitheads who will give you a headache. But, more than that, it will produce a Google Knowledge Panel that you do not control. Don't do that. It's an even bigger headache.

If you want a Google Knowledge Panel, the simplest way to get one is to make a Wikidata entry for yourself, which is very easy, and for which you will face little to no opposition. Put all your social media in there, and whatever else factual information you desire. And then, as a funny guy I read once said, 'just pollute the Internet.'

Put the same copy, your biography, in every social media account you can think of. Describe yourself in simple terms: [Name] is [Occupation]! They were born [date!] And then whatever else you want. Google will eventually pick this up, and make you a Knowledge Panel.

And if you write books, just put one of your books on Google Books. Anything you put as your author name will get its own Knowledge Panel. Simple!

But, if you want to do it the hard way— the way where you ultimately don't control anything— well, I have that for you.

It's simple as shit to just look at other people's pages, and roll the dice. Just look at the pages for GeoWizard and Asspizza. The bar is so low, you have to dig for it.

Doesn't take much! But, the Panel gets baleeted, if your Wikipedia page does. However, anything from your Wikidata will be used to populate a different Knowledge Panel. So you can still use this as a foot in the door, to get on in dere.

If you're wondering specifically how the Panel creation process is triggered, here you go:

1. Make a Wikipedia page.
2. Make a Wikidata page for the Wikipedia page.
3. Link the Wikidata page to the Wikipedia page.
4. Link the Wikipedia page to the Wikidata page.

And, shh-bams! It's done.

Most people are foolish, so they just make a new article in the mainspace. That's rookie shit.

First, get an autoconfirmed account. Make sure the account is older. Don't argue; don't ruffle any feathers. Just accumulate edits, and go.

At night, start your page as a Draft. But, instead of submitting your Article for 'Review', just move that shit into the Mainspace. There's a chance someone will notice; but, you're basically rolling the dice, here.

Now here's the fun part: Sometimes, the page doesn't even show up in any of the Review tools. That means nobody can see it, unless they already know it exists. This works well for you, because Google can fucking see it just fine.

Sometimes, Google Knowledge Panels are generated within 15 minutes.

Now, of course, you might think— but I'm not supposed to make a page on myself.

Yeah?

And?

Since when did random strangers have the right to write stupid shit about you? Journalists did that shit all the time, to me. Just because someone says they get to make shit up about you and you cannot do anything, doesn't mean you cannot do anything.

For a lot of CEOs, their pages are completely bought and paid for— literally. Paid article writing is a menace. And that, I will emphatically request, is something you should never do. Never accept, nor pay money, in order to write an article, or get one written. Instead, do it for free!

It's the Wikipedia way!

The fun part is the shit that's actually allowed seems even more dubious, somehow.

Ultimately, I didn't want an article.

In my pursuit of a Google Knowledge Panel, I was crazy. I was willing to do anything I could, in order to get it. Except, of course, pay money: that is a fool's game, and the prize is worthless. I just wanted to see if I could do it.

Ultimately, however, my wife and I decided that a page for myself was useless.

Because I don't fucking want you to write about me.

Usually, the word 'you' is meant to mean 'one'. As in, I don't want [someone] to write about me.

This includes you. I am speaking, to you. I don't want you to write about me.

If you've been paying attention to my Bizarre Adventure for the past 7 years, I've gotten dragged through the shit more times than I can count. Journalists have defamed me, or toed the line of defamation, as much as they could. Plenty of times. And, I've realized something. Human beings are bad.

Wikipedians like to try to talk people out of making articles on themselves, for the sole purpose of making their own lives easier. That's not it at all, here. I'm not saying that you shouldn't write an article about yourself, because they might 'chronicle' something 'bad' that you've done. I don't give a shit about that anymore. And, largely, they're too fucking afraid of committing libel to actually put much on there that's particularly damning.

Even the articles on actual Neo-Nazis very rarely say they're Neo-Nazis. It's stupid.

In any case, when I say, 'don't write about me', what I'm saying, is, that they don't deserve to write about me.

Human beings are untrustworthy douchenozzles, and they often make shit up about you. A Google Knowledge Panel is bad enough: if you get listed as Dead on one, good luck fixing that. And when it comes to a Wikipedia page? All the worst power-mongery assholes are writing your public biography. Do you want that?

I don't want that.

Human beings, especially those who consider themselves 'writers,' all seem to think that they should be trusted with the final definition of who a person is. And, seeing as how one person once wrote an article implying that I was a serial killer, I don't fucking trust y'all anymore.

Keep in mind also that there are a minimum of three scholarly articles written about my penis.

My apprehension is practically a statement of fact, at this point.

Online information about people is practically graffiti.

See, when people think about getting famous, they assume a climate where they're well-loved, well-known, and treated well. You ain't gettin' none of that shit. All information out there about you is going to be ALL wrong. At all times.

There's a saying, but I don't remember it. 'Trust an idiot with a bucket, and he'll shit in it', I think. Meaning, if you give someone access to something, they're going to ruin it.

When you get anything official written about you, you are giving an idiot a bucket to shit in.

Some celebrities are 'litigious' for a reason. You get known, and people will make shit up about you. Once, when I was a kid, a group of adults, now deceased, called up a kid on the phone and told him they were going to rape him, and kill his parents. One even said they were going to rape his dad. You know what happened when I told them that I was calling the police? I had an entire group of adults threatening to frame me for what they did. I was nine. I cannot even fathom what the Hell that would be like, in this current digital 'climate'.

To make matters worse, any allegations, false or not, are going to dominate all documentation about you, online, for at least a year. Wikipedia just makes this worse. Do you want that? Are you equipped to handle it? If no, then don't.

A Wikipedia page, a Google Knowledge Panel? They're not perks. They're liabilities. You can't control them once they're up, and good luck figuring out how to get them deleted.

Previously entitled "DO NOT MAKE A FUCKING WIKIPEDIA PAGE ON ME."

God damn it.

Previously, I said that, should a page be made on me, on Wikipedia, I would go there myself, and protest its very creation, and existence. "Fuck off; fuck right the fuck off," reads my statement.

A Wikipedia page was created, on me. And I watched the inner workings, its very design— and, its eventual, sweet demise.

All-in-all, it worked out splendiferously for me. The page was deleted; and any attempt at re-creating a previously-deleted article always faces fierce opposition.

Good.

Keep my fucking name out your mouth.

I don't want to be written about. None of you are going to get it right, and you never fucking will.

What a strange trip this has been.

Wikipedia's a lost cause. I say that emphatically. Nothing can be written about, forever. People are going to get tired; and communities always stagnate, thanks to the most-toxic individuals staying the longest. The project's fucking doomed, and everybody even tangentially involved, knows it.

New things come out, all the time. Thanks to the shortness of the human lifespan, what's old becomes new for new generations, all the goddamned time. But, eventually, when you're collating all of the eccentricities of life, you're gonna start to get 'done'. In more ways than one.

In preparation for the page I was going to make on myself, I spent a month building a strong account that wouldn't be questioned. And, with it, I could've done anything. I spent 30 days fighting vandalism. I won awards. People genuinely liked me. And I could've gone further. But it's meaningless.

I have to tell you, honestly: looking at the place for just 30 days, I've got no hope for it. It's broken, and it will not be fixed.

Why? Because there's nothing left to do, already. Fifteen years ago, when I first left it, it was already functionally 'complete'. It was in a state where people were struggling to find things to write about. It's no better, these days. And everybody's in such a bad mood, now.

There's not that much vandalism to even fight, either. Most of the time, I was racing Cluebot. Cluebot's fast, but I'm faster than most. For most normal people, they're not beating Cluebot. No matter what they do. So, Vandalism is pretty much taken care of. That's a solved problem, and it's only going to get more solved as time goes on.

With nothing really new to write about— or nothing really new being accepted— and Vandalism being a solved problem, the fucking wiki is in Maintenance mode. There's nowhere to go from here but down.

On the other hand, while there's nothing left to write about— or, at the very least, nothing acceptable to write about— you have yourself an inherently-incompletable task. It's impossible to make an encyclopedia on everything. As Lewis Black once put said about something else, it is "a beast— that cannot be fed."

Wikipedia is what it is. It's plain as day to see what it is. And what it is, is an utterly hopeless, incompletable task. The better the bots get, the less there is for humans to do. And, soon, you're just sitting there, minding the same baby, pretending you're in Wikicourt, forever. You're not even having any fun.

With social media as a game, at least there's an end goal: get verified. For Wikipedia, it's seeking meaningless power.

Both are worthless.