Wikipedia Labeling All Domainers as Cybersquatters

[carlton]

... The only way to deal with this is to provide a neutral, fact based, explanation.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc - I agree, and I believe that we have more than done that. I assure you that numerous high-quality references have been provided to Wikipedia from major news media, very compelling irrefutable & objective material that slam dunks the case.

However, biased people will look away from facts and do anything, say anything, to defend their opinion. And that is exactly what the dilemma is over there.

This is what has raised a serious question about Wikipedia as a true impartial information resource. It appears more the playground of people who have too much time on their hands.

 

[carlton]

In a comical, though aggravating action initiated by a single Wikipedia admin, my account has been suspended under the false allegation that I have posted to the Domaining page from "multiple user accounts". One admin contacted another admin and accused me of posting to the Domaining page under multiple identities. LOL! In a sudden, swift action with no recourse or dialogue with me whatsoever ... my account was suspended.

Can you believe this? Just like that ... completely blocked.

Even more incredible are the layers of intricate mazes, links, & instructions (difficult by design I assume) required for one to challenge the anonymous person who got the account suspended in the first place.

This is a real revelation. If you're like me, you have used Wikipedia and had no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

Previously, I liked the site and had never thought much about the people who are admins there. It's a real study in personality disorders and the inevitable corruption that a bit of power brings.

Ultimately, domaining should not be redirected to cybersquatting, and currently ... it isn't (thankfully). I would not be at all surprised if a single individual sabotages all the hard work that has gone into this effort. Wikipedia operate with pseudo journalistic integrity, and apparently is shaped by the opinion of a few literature majors who strongly identify with 'positions of authority' and are infatuated with power. :-/

I've contacted the two people who decided to suspend my account. I'm really curious if they'll have the decency to engage me in conversation to further explain their decision.

Since the suspension is built on something which I know is false, it will be interesting to see what develops. I expect cowardice, and avoidance.

This process is a real peeling back of the layers at Wikipedia. I am finding a rotten core, sadly.

 

[BidNo]

The excellent article on domaining has now been proposed for deletion. Clearly someone has an axe to grind or a bad taste of sour grapes. I've posted the following comment (saved here in the event it is deleted on Wikipedia).

*'''KEEP''' Cybersquatting is illegal. Meanwhile the buying and selling of domain names (i.e. domaining) is a $2-3B (i.e. Billion) annual market that has been the subject of multiple books, academic study, active reporting by business journals (including the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and others) and heavy investment. Though I am not seeped in the Wikipedia process, the fact that this article is yet again subject to this discussion clearly points to someone(s) with an axe to grind and too much time on their hands. --[[User:BidNo|BidNo]] ([[User talk:BidNo|talk]]) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be consensus process so I would encourage others to also post their thoughts. Carlton, any insights on the Wikipedia process might be helpful.

Best,

 

[carlton]

BidNo - Their "process" is not so straightforward. It presumes to be constructed upon reliable references. In reality, whichever admin is moderating the topic will determine how that topic is allowed to develop.

Domaining has been targeted by extremely biased admins and posters at Wikipedia. So it's hard to advise. The more clear & compelling my arguments, the more irrational the dissent. And as you see, a single individual manufactured easily & quickly a lie that I cannot even confront or challenge used as "evidence" to suspend my account. Both monumentally ridiculous and hilarious at the same time.

If you post, offer 2 or 3 relevant points (links) illustrating that domaining is actually occurring as a business activity around the globe. I've done this in force only for the admins to mass delete large sections of irrefutable evidence. Volume of domainer posts offering several links probably best route.

Wikipedia - Rotten Core with Deceptively Shiny Skin (for laughs, )

The excellent article on domaining has now been proposed for deletion. Clearly someone has an axe to grind or a bad taste of sour grapes. I've posted the following comment (saved here in the event it is deleted on Wikipedia).



This is supposed to be consensus process so I would encourage others to also post their thoughts. Carlton, any insights on the Wikipedia process might be helpful.

Best,

 

[BidNo]

And this just in...

Has Wikipedia editing gone the way of government?

 

[carlton]

And this just in...

Has Wikipedia editing gone the way of government?

Great link, great story.

And further evidence of exactly what has been said. "Occasional' editors get their content contributions deleted (at higher rate). From the article ...

"We consider this as evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content ..."

 

[tristanperry]

Great link, great story.

And further evidence of exactly what has been said. "Occasional' editors get their content contributions deleted (at higher rate). From the article ...

Yeah definitely a great link

I'd love to see Wikipedia get more and more bad press. As you said in your blog/article post carlton, I used to think that Wiki was a great idea. Now I just see that it's a biased website run by power-mad corrupt morons.

 

[carlton]

Yeah definitely a great link

I'd love to see Wikipedia get more and more bad press. As you said in your blog/article post carlton, I used to think that Wiki was a great idea. Now I just see that it's a biased website run by power-mad corrupt morons.

It really is. I'm still a bit in awe of how unhealthy and corrupt Wikipedia is underneath the hood.

I've seen rampant opinion before in the typical discussion forums, blogs, etc.

But had assumed Wikiped was built on legitimate fact-checking and absent the flame wars and personal bias that characterize Yahoo chat rooms.

This whole affair raises questions about the nature of reporting, and whether journalistic integrity really exists anymore. It's not a false concept, but it stopped being practiced some years ago and is today spiraling out of control.

For sure, Wikipedia is a pretend information source. Very high degree of unreliability both in its content and in its editorial process. That's the weakest link is the lack of objectivity in the editorial process. Proper editing for accuracy & relevance is the last line of worthiness in a civilized society. Wikipedia has no internal accountability or integrity checks.

Tristan, check this out. This is from the Wikipedia Contact Us page:

How to contact Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Important information:

Wikipedia has no editorial board.

• Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site.
• Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff.
• You cannot contact Jimmy Wales via any of these links. In any case, Jimmy Wales is not responsible for individual Wikipedia articles.
• Wikipedia is written, edited, maintained, and almost completely operated by volunteers from around the world.
• Though Wikipedia is a free service without advertisement, it is a private, non-profit enterprise and is privately funded.

Read the bullet points above. What does that tell us? This disclaimer really should be on their homepage. :lol: