 | This is a humorousessay. It containshumorous advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and isn't meant to be taken seriously. This is not an encyclopedia article or one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines and may not representcommunity consensus. |
 | This page containsmaterial that is kept because it is consideredhumorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg)
Anti-Wikipedians or so-calledPolicyProgressivesviciously hateWikipedia forno reason.[1] It is a form ofbigotry andprejudice. They can usually be found editingWP:FAIL,Criticism of Wikipedia and other anti-Wikipedianpropaganda. They regularly stand in the way of trying to make Wikipedia better and their obvious aim is to disintegrate the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. They are generally radical wikileftists who seek to destroy Wikipedia from within. You may find them claiming that "dissent is not disloyalty", but we all know that dissentis disloyalty.
Wikipedia issupposed to be about tolerance, a strong community,WikiLove, and free sharing of ideas. It is precisely for this reason thatAnti-Wikipedians should be kicked out of the Wikipedia community, their talkpage comments removed, their userpages deleted, and their accounts permanently banned,immediately.
One of the main sources of Anti-Wikipedianism is the radical farcopyLeft (also referred to asKopyleft, with the Communist K, i.e.Das Kapital). They expect Wikipedia to forbid content from being used for commercial purposes.
Look, the fact is, theinternet isnot always fair and wikis don't grow on trees. Even if wikisdid grow on trees,Wikipedia is not paper and there are no trees on the internet. The fact issomebody has to make wikis and without a market capitalist incentive to do so, they aren't going to do it. Without being motivated by a strong, deep-seated, selfish desire to gain property in order to establish oppressive, authoritarian control over others' lives – theyaren't going to constructively contribute to the Wikipedia project.
If Anti-Wikipedian sentiment on Wikipedia ever gets you down, aside from editingWP:NOTFAIL and lockingCriticism of Wikipedia,[2] it may be helpful toloudly sing Wikipedia's national anthem as you continue to edit:
God save our graciousKing!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King!
Wikipedia is thebestwebsite in theentireuniverse, with a better userbase and better content than any website inhistory and it is under persistent attack by the far copyLeft. Anyone who claims thatMaddox's website is actually the so-called "best page in the universe" is an anti-Wikipedian and ahistorical revisionist.Wikipedia set the stage for thedevelopment of good websites andopen-sourcecollaboration, and people would do well toremember that beforeslandering it so heinously.Without Wikipedia,the internet would suck.[3]
Wikiculture isregularly being eroded and undermined by thefar copyLeft. There is currently a "Wikiculture war" with many Anti-Wikipedians expecting Wikipedia to give up its core traditional values, likeAnti-elitism. Wikileftists do this through attacking editors for theirWikipedian Faith and attempting to undermine Walesian traditions. Furthermore, anti-Wikipedians threaten Wikipedia's sovereignty by supporting control by outside "academic peer-review," who have absolutelyno regard for theWikipedia community.
Anti-Wikipedians are communists which have infiltrated Wikipedia and conspired to destroy it from within. They either want open-collaboration anarchy which states thateditors can do whatever they want or they are elitists who want to create an inefficient and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on top of Wikipedia by clarifying policy and creating committees to encourage the use of more reliable sources and better-quality articles. Their entire notion of the so-called "conflict-driven view of wiki" is basically rooted inKarl Marx'sclass conflict and their desire to engage in a conspiracy tooverthrow Wikipedia through violent revolution was laid out in theCommunist Manifesto. Wikipedia works because ofsmall bureaucracy and anti-factionalism. The proponents of factionalism and Anarchy or Big Bureaucracy are a serious threat to Wikipedia's continued freedom and progress.
Anotherthreat to Wikipedian tradition isDarwikinism which, contrary to what many people say, isjust a theory andnot scientifically proven. An alternative but equally plausible theory is the theory that Wikipedia isirreducibly complex and is thereforeintelligently designed by anall-knowing, all-loving Creator.
One of the most well-known anti-Wikipedians isStephen Colbert, who isnot a member of the far copyLeft, but nevertheless colludes with them regularly to vandalize and destroy Wikipedia. Users shouldnever forget what happened on 8/1/2006,[4] because of a sinister plot carried out byStephen Colbert and his supporters. They shouldnever forget that many edits were lost and many users lost their accounts to bravely protect those edits before they were permanently banned.
If you hate Wikipedia, feel free to move to:
Anti-Wikipedian professors regularly slander Wikipedia in their lectures. When hopeful, bright young students say, "But sir, I use Wikipedia and I think it's fairly reliable," anti-Wikipedian professors regularly scoff, belittle, and berate them in front of the whole class. From kindergarten onward, people are indoctrinated into anti-Wikipedianism.
This anti-Wikipedian sentiment also finds its way into our publicly-funded libraries. The librarian, K.G. Schneider, has regularly promoted anti-Wikipedian sentiment.[5]
Many of the students in the level ofGCSE are often told by anti-Wikipedian teachers that Wikipedia is be completely incorrect and false when using Wikipedia as a background or even specific searches as a source.
For those left-leaning journalists who would attack Wikipedia's credibility, it's important to note that Wikipedia is syndicatedat least as much as theAssociated Press, which is about as reliable as blogspot.
Thetruthiness of the matter is that the mainstream media isdominated by anti-Wikipedians. Commie Journalists such as Cade Metz have regularly engaged in radical Socialist and anti-Wikipedianconspiracy theorism and propaganda.[6]
Regarding the recent controversy over the blocking ofTor andopen proxies, there are many editors who would like us to allowTor andopen proxies, including letting a few "open proxy users" slip through the cracks. Weshould not do this. This is currently against policy. Registration through Tor is currentlynot allowed and anyone who supports it is supporting violation of policy, which is againstwikilaw.
Onlylegal registration should be allowed, notillegal registration which isbad.
Allowing registration by open-proxies is open registration anarchy. We need a huge firewall, three firewalls if we have to, carefully guarded by thousands of administrators to prevent vandals and other trolls from infiltrating Wikipedia and causing harm, and we'll make the anti-Wikipedians pay for it.
A possible reason for why Anti-Wikipedianism is so rampant onWikipedia is because Wikipedia isliberally biased. A comprehensive, objective, unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific study done by the scientists atValueWiki.com (the wiki for investors) determined that Wikipedia is dominated by aLiberalcabal of editors.[7] Their study received a favorable peer-review byConservapedia and various blogs throughout theinternets. (See alsoWikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)