is wikipedia violating human rights?
first i want to explain why i am against wikipedia.
i also want to let people know that i am not alone.
recently wikipedia was called "the largest distributed bureaucracy in the world".
i am against them, because there is no commercial feedback, hidden groups managing the content pretty much, and for them there is no pressure from the consumers side to implement things.
wikipedia could be used to:
-abuse the 3rd world by pushing a monocore of views (theirs)
-launder money by donating it to wikipedia
-receive governments grants like the FSF, because legally it counts as charity
-as a springboard to track individuals, to harass them through communities, and to track political events.
further, because the way it is built and managed, it gives junkies, h***sexuals, and criminals an easy way to broadcast their creativity (or willingness to follow a pedantic style guide) to everyone- including schools, private homes, and children. anyone can edit it- is this good? i do not think so. no credit card, no phone- no hidden editoral work.
i write this, because my "case" was once "mediated" (see Afghanistan) by a h***sexual pastor (one who supports same sex marriage). my feeling was to become somehow befuddled. also in the follow up, i figured out that R. Stallmann, the founder of the FSF, and the spiritual father of LINUX, GNU, the GDFL, and thus wikipedia, supports "same sex marriage", and to smoke hash.
so maybe wikipedia is near-east guerilla tactics, to manipulate the way typical US americans understand things, and even to invade the health care sector? in the future, people who speak up against wikipedia will be sent to a doctor by their employer, and the doctor will use wikipedia to establish a diagnosis. well this would be south-america-style junta methods. fiction? or reality in the not-so-far future.
what really sucks is that there is a guide about WINDOWS VISTA- practically a product guide, for a product whose cycle is not finished, no, it was even just introduced to the market. you call call it propaganda- even if it is neutral (NPOV) on the surface- maybe it is not if you look twice.
and a list of meaningful japanese video game programmers! this is clearly a privacy violation. they can not list individuals without their expressed consence. they simply abuse a law vacauum!
the summary, i do not want to produce an endless article, is that wikipedia is a very shabby wannabe replacement of the ordinary internet. anyone can setup a website for just a few dollars- and broadcast point of view information. think there would be a foundation, to whom you can forward URLs- to be included in a direct keyword directory. voila (french)- you get a 1:1 wikipedia replacement. indeed, you can use flickr for this purpose- if you base your articles on pictures! there is no law against tagging them in the way you think it might be useful, cool, entertaining or whatever. you can add as many URLs as you want! and anyone can add comments.
there is no stasi (former east germany) junta trying to block you, to fuddle into your pages, to edit your entries, and to push a fascist-like guide of style. you can use as many "external links" as you like, and there, you are free to use the whole HTML, CSS, JAVA, FLASH, whatever repertoire.
so why people can't do this together with wikipedia? because- it would become a replacement for the ordinary internet? it already has become. often wikipedia shows up on top of all search results- a congrulation cake to J. Wales and his young daughter. it is worth to mention it. but be so unaware of the privacy violation? there are people who are not. and in the end there is no neutral point of view- it is demagogy J. Wales invented freely- wait, what was the name of the _____ animal in Orwells animal farm? i can not call it instantly (but sure it would be available on wikipedia). the summary of Orwells story is that in the end, the revolutioneers have become a replacement for the original "capitalist pigs"- and maybe, even something worse.
is it the hidden mission of wikipedia to illustrate why stasi & co, DDR (east germany), and the soviet union failed? because of "apparatchik" beton heads? and bureaucracy. they did not see "consumer needs", and they never attempted to optimize it using commercial feedback. and they formed a monopople "HO" pretty much. the irony is that all this could be researched on wikipedia- but how would it be? for the people who had to endure this system. to get essay whipped down by kids and teenagers- if they are formed according to wikipedia's style guides, include analogies and reverse acronymes, content becomes meaningless.
further, they can even be maintained, to get an "essay 2.0", according to o-tone (original tone) from wikipedia admin's "without any knowledge of the content", but by applying "wikipedia's style guides". this would be capable to improve the content!
one really strange thing was when i added the "animated property" article to wikipedia. they asked me to cite sources- what planet are they living on? Beate Uhse? Playboy? OK a blow-up doll could be called "animated property" (and scientifically, it is one). but, it is unlikely to use this word for such an item. so should there be a warning not to use it in that context? according to wikipedia, not, because it is "not censored". and also, pretty much everyone knows "animated property"- used in Hollywood movies! OK people who have not grown up with home TV, VHS, cinema movies will not know "animated properties", so to say, minorities. for them, "sources must be cited"?
you see, a lot of odd things. and i give you more links. i think a time to put an end at the growth of wikipedia has come.