The Wikipedia Logo Should Change
Posted 22nd May 2014 at 03:10 PM by imarkedy
Tags internet advertising, marketing, web, wiki, wikipedia
Over the years, I’ve often believed the Wikipedia logo should change from the current ‘globe’ to something more, dare I say, Gestapo like! I know this is harsh but as Wikipedia struggles to find more content those who, for years, have harassed new article writers for nothing more than retaining power are getting more out of control by the day. Why? Although there will always be new Wiki subjects to post, that number has dropped significantly as most topics have been covered by content creators and not unlike those who experience writer’s block, volunteer article contributors and editors are short on material.
Let me first put forward; Wikipedia is a GREAT website and certainly, one of the grandest (not to mention successful) experiments to ever appear online! We are Wikipedia fans; make no mistake and surely, we as hundreds of millions of others, globally, regularly consult it for information. Therein, dear reader, lies the ‘rub’ - Wikipedia welcomes financial donations and readership however, contributing content despite claims to the contrary, is quite another story. There are quality requirements which, at best, are loosely enforced and whether any article is published (or deleted) is solely within the discretion of an ‘elite few’ editors. What may surprise most is these editors aren’t Wikipedia employees, mostly, but regular folk just like you and I who are (huge gulp) volunteers.
By itself, volunteering is a great thing when it serves a larger public good as does Wikipedia. However; when the humble heart of a volunteer becomes drunk with power, elitism enters the fray and once noble causes are turned into surrealistic nightmares. Such has become the fate of Wikipedia and for those hoping to publish an article in the near future, good luck because based on monitoring the site over the last several years; it is getting harder and harder to do so.
Is this because content quality requirements were raised and new contributors just can’t meet higher standards? Hardly – chief among reasons is Wikipedia’s Gestapo, drunk with power and low on self-esteem, want to demonstrate they have the power and the rest of us can just go straight to hell! There is a ‘sand-box’ feature on Wikipedia which allows testing and discussions of new articles. At one time, this tool was effective for feedback to those who desired publishing topic specific articles. Sadly, those days are long past and one is more likely to get struck by lightning than receive any constructive feedback from editors in the sand-box.
When no feedback is received or worse, the non-helpful kind, new contributors write articles only to, once published, check back later and discover their content has been deleted. It gets worse – even when all editorial suggestions are followed, content is disregarded and never published. Let’s take that one-step further to show the rank hypocrisy of the editorial elite; unknown to most, some editors ‘ghost write’ articles for new contributors (charging a small fee of course).
I am not going to expose anyone but a simple online search for freelance writers will uncover a few names. Nevertheless; when this content, written by those from within the heart of Wikipedia, is published and certainly meeting quality standards, other editors delete articles claiming ‘quality issues’. To add ‘insult to injury’; these same ghost-writers continue to crank out content for Wikipedia with no such penalty. Wow! Why is this important enough for us to write about? Simple; we are calling on Wikipedia.com’s paid staff to become more involved with these rogue operators. Although a sad testament to a once proud venture, the ‘honor system’ so depended on among volunteer editors is no such thing.
If paid employees put as much effort into managing this unpaid workforce as is true while ‘fundraising’ and ‘begging’ for money from the general public, these issues would not exist or certainly not on such a massive and corrupt scale. Anything short of wholesale ‘house-cleaning’ of editors and the world must assume Wikipedia is complicit in the corruption!
Let’s briefly examine the mind-set of these editors. Having been a business owner for more than 14 years (as of this writing), I say with surety that most are employees of someone else! Oh my; that is a huge leap of logic but let me explain; unlike great business owners who understand ‘great power requires even greater humility’, employees tend to, with each step up the ladder of authority, become more arrogant. Is this always true? Certainly not but having hired (and fired) hundreds, 90% of the time this is, indeed, a measurable fact.
It could be argued that Wikipedia’s volunteer editors simply take their duties seriously and have a zealous love for the community. I would agree, somewhat, but the attitude(s) we, as well as thousands of others contributors, have received demonstrates something much more sinister. Volunteers either don’t know or have forgotten great communities (social) require formation of a give and take relationship. Some time ago, I caused quite the controversy for exposing the miserable social community failure that is Hubpages.com. In their defense and though having foregone giving back to contributors, the hub is still open to taking (content) from their community. Wikipedia has forsaken both and thus can no longer be called a community rather an online cult which has closed itself off from the outside world (except during each fundraising cycle). If these volunteers were receiving something in return, I could understand such selfishness (though still wouldn’t agree) but why shut the door on others just as (or more) capable as they?
I’ve already given the answer; trying to hold on to power at the expense of Wikipedia’s now diminishing brand image. I am calling on REAL Wikipedia staff to understand these editors are costing you much more than a savings in salary. The real expense is something you claim to value most – well-written, original, subject specific content. How long will you let such incompetent Content Nazis treat the rest of us like ‘Untermensch’?
B.D. Dale
Online Learning Instructor
Let me first put forward; Wikipedia is a GREAT website and certainly, one of the grandest (not to mention successful) experiments to ever appear online! We are Wikipedia fans; make no mistake and surely, we as hundreds of millions of others, globally, regularly consult it for information. Therein, dear reader, lies the ‘rub’ - Wikipedia welcomes financial donations and readership however, contributing content despite claims to the contrary, is quite another story. There are quality requirements which, at best, are loosely enforced and whether any article is published (or deleted) is solely within the discretion of an ‘elite few’ editors. What may surprise most is these editors aren’t Wikipedia employees, mostly, but regular folk just like you and I who are (huge gulp) volunteers.
By itself, volunteering is a great thing when it serves a larger public good as does Wikipedia. However; when the humble heart of a volunteer becomes drunk with power, elitism enters the fray and once noble causes are turned into surrealistic nightmares. Such has become the fate of Wikipedia and for those hoping to publish an article in the near future, good luck because based on monitoring the site over the last several years; it is getting harder and harder to do so.
Is this because content quality requirements were raised and new contributors just can’t meet higher standards? Hardly – chief among reasons is Wikipedia’s Gestapo, drunk with power and low on self-esteem, want to demonstrate they have the power and the rest of us can just go straight to hell! There is a ‘sand-box’ feature on Wikipedia which allows testing and discussions of new articles. At one time, this tool was effective for feedback to those who desired publishing topic specific articles. Sadly, those days are long past and one is more likely to get struck by lightning than receive any constructive feedback from editors in the sand-box.
When no feedback is received or worse, the non-helpful kind, new contributors write articles only to, once published, check back later and discover their content has been deleted. It gets worse – even when all editorial suggestions are followed, content is disregarded and never published. Let’s take that one-step further to show the rank hypocrisy of the editorial elite; unknown to most, some editors ‘ghost write’ articles for new contributors (charging a small fee of course).
I am not going to expose anyone but a simple online search for freelance writers will uncover a few names. Nevertheless; when this content, written by those from within the heart of Wikipedia, is published and certainly meeting quality standards, other editors delete articles claiming ‘quality issues’. To add ‘insult to injury’; these same ghost-writers continue to crank out content for Wikipedia with no such penalty. Wow! Why is this important enough for us to write about? Simple; we are calling on Wikipedia.com’s paid staff to become more involved with these rogue operators. Although a sad testament to a once proud venture, the ‘honor system’ so depended on among volunteer editors is no such thing.
If paid employees put as much effort into managing this unpaid workforce as is true while ‘fundraising’ and ‘begging’ for money from the general public, these issues would not exist or certainly not on such a massive and corrupt scale. Anything short of wholesale ‘house-cleaning’ of editors and the world must assume Wikipedia is complicit in the corruption!
Let’s briefly examine the mind-set of these editors. Having been a business owner for more than 14 years (as of this writing), I say with surety that most are employees of someone else! Oh my; that is a huge leap of logic but let me explain; unlike great business owners who understand ‘great power requires even greater humility’, employees tend to, with each step up the ladder of authority, become more arrogant. Is this always true? Certainly not but having hired (and fired) hundreds, 90% of the time this is, indeed, a measurable fact.
It could be argued that Wikipedia’s volunteer editors simply take their duties seriously and have a zealous love for the community. I would agree, somewhat, but the attitude(s) we, as well as thousands of others contributors, have received demonstrates something much more sinister. Volunteers either don’t know or have forgotten great communities (social) require formation of a give and take relationship. Some time ago, I caused quite the controversy for exposing the miserable social community failure that is Hubpages.com. In their defense and though having foregone giving back to contributors, the hub is still open to taking (content) from their community. Wikipedia has forsaken both and thus can no longer be called a community rather an online cult which has closed itself off from the outside world (except during each fundraising cycle). If these volunteers were receiving something in return, I could understand such selfishness (though still wouldn’t agree) but why shut the door on others just as (or more) capable as they?
I’ve already given the answer; trying to hold on to power at the expense of Wikipedia’s now diminishing brand image. I am calling on REAL Wikipedia staff to understand these editors are costing you much more than a savings in salary. The real expense is something you claim to value most – well-written, original, subject specific content. How long will you let such incompetent Content Nazis treat the rest of us like ‘Untermensch’?
B.D. Dale
Online Learning Instructor
