User:BlankVerse/rants

  <User:BlankVerse/Other Subpages
  <User:BlankVerse/rants/evidence

BlankVerse's ever-lengthening Wikipedia rants

note : I have started an evidence subpage that will be used to provide examples for some of the topics that I've covered below. At the moment there is only one example on that page. Also, for some of the topics, I will probably create separate subpages that will discuss the particular topic in more detail, but, that will happen sometime later.

Please, if you want to respond to any of my points don't edit this page, but instead reply on the Talk page.

I've started this collection of rants mostly because of the ever-increasing number of articles on the internet and in print, both pro and con, about the Wikipedia. For both types of articles it seems like most of their authors have not spent that much time examining the Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is obvious that none of them have spent much time actually editing articles on the Wikipedia. Especially for the anti-Wikipedia articles, it seems like each writer is like one of the blind men in the Indian parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, where they examine one single aspect of the Wikipedia, or even just one article on the Wikipedia, and assume that is representative of the rest of the Wikipedia.

This is my collection of criticisms of the Wikipedia as written by a regular editor, who, despite these criticisms below, still holds out hope that the Wikipedia can improve both articles and procedures.