The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without redirecting. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor a discussion forum, nor a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 00:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki fraud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An essay on factual inaccuracy and lack of citation on Wikipedia. Prod (which pointed out that the article itself has a lack of citation) removed with the comment: WIkipedia has no policy requiring that everyone cite their sources. Thus, this author, who has written an article critisizing wikipedia will also not cite sources to make a point. Suggest move to users space? Marasmusine 11:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Wiki-fraud" or "Wiki fraud" (the article uses these terms interchangably) is a non-notable neologism, made up by the author of the article as far as I can see. The article also (regardless of what the authour says) breaches WP:ATT by not citing sources. Also appears not to be written from a NPOV (i.e. suggesting 99% of articles subject to wiki-fraud, reference to people referring to Wikipedia as "slack-jawed yokels").Jules 11:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy, per WP:ASR - furthermore, phrases like "slack-jawed yokle" [sic] have no place in article space. (Also, the "driving force behind the American Scholastic Board's barring of using Wikipedia as a source in any student's Ph.D thesis paper" isn't "wiki fraud", but a desire for primary and secondary sources in such writing - citing an encyclopedia in a thesis paper would get you laughed at; although Wikipedia is a nice encyclopedia, it remains an encyclopedia. Just sayin'.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and comments like "Wikipedia is ... Joseph Stalin's Communist propganda machine" on the talk page don't help either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, or possible userfy or turn into an essay. But get it out of articlespace unless it can be proven to be an notabale neologism (complete with sources off course). WegianWarrior 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to preserve the authority of Wiki Cabal. Original research and neologism, thus delete or possibly userfy.--TBCΦtalk? 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems more like (scathing) criticism than encyclopedia article. Opinion Dureo 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as above, just blatant (and intentional) criticism of Wikipedia. Articles like this are a direct attempt ot atack the integrity of Wikipedia and th creators should be treated in the same way of vandals (policy states that an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia is vandalism). Also, i'm certain that the 99% statistic is innaccurate in the extreme.

User:ANHL

if I may dissent, we don't need witch hunts and stake burning exercises on Wikipedia. Alf^Photoman 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic, NPOV and since sufficient sources aren't given, original research. 82.135.86.58 13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog or a discussion forum. RGTraynor 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not because I want to say that there is nothing relevant in that article. All those cases should be addressed. But WE DON'T HAVE ARTICLES WITHOUT SOURCES. If the editor wants to know the pertinent rules he might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, WP:ATT .... Alf^Photoman 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense Al-Bargit 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete author admits to violating WP:POINT. JuJube 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - essays of any sort neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete Nice satire, but it doesn't belong in article space. Just as a proper analysis of the % error in WP doesnt belong in article space --until it has been published elsewhere. DGG 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wiki-Fraud. Delete per WP:NOT a soapbox. Unsourced, POV, unattributable, WP:POINT, and in fact disprovable on multiple points. The underlying valid points would be far better addressed by starting a legitimate essay from scratch (without childish whining and sniping) and posting it in Wikipedia: space, not article-space. Barno 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a real gem "Political pundit Stephen Colbert editing a wikipedia article on Elephants, claiming that the population of Elephants has tripled in the last 6 months, that was latter used by pro-poacher groups in Africa to successfully lobby for the unbridled slaughter of thousands of Elephants in western Africa". — MichaelLinnear 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one of the articles concerning criticism of wikipedia or such like. Cloveoil 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE

• First of all, Wikipedia's rule on Reliable sources is:

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Keyword - whenever possible. So if it is not possible (for any reason at all, as there are no stated guidelines as to what defines impossibility) an author does not have to specify the sources of his facts, or even have any sources for his facts, period. AND since the author did not specify a source, one has no way of knowing whether this fact has come from a primary reference or secondary reference - thus, every uncited fact is arguably taken from a secondary source, which do to SOME factor, whatever that factor may be, citing that source is impossible. Hence, the unreferenced fact is fully in compliance with wikipeida's rules on reliable sources.

Thus, an unreferenced fact is a reliable source! (Wikipeida's rules, not mine)

Hence, the argument that this article should be deleted because not citing sources is against wikipedia policy is spurious at best.

• Second, this article has been proposed for deletion because of wikipedia's policy on neologisms. However, wikipedia has plenty of article's on neologisms already - wikipedia's page on deletion says email is a neologism, but wikipedia has an entry on e-mail. Thus if you delete the page on wiki fraud, to be consistent, you have to go delete EVERY article on neologisms; now what kind of so called "Encyclopeida" would wikipedia be if it did not have an article on e-mail.

• Thirdly, as to the claims that this article is inaccurate: Where are your sources? (Show me your sources and I will show you mine.) By Proposing that this article should because deleted because the facts contained in the article are inaccurate, without providing evidence in support of your own claims, is a little hypocritical at best.

• Finally, in response to "thought police officer's" comment: "Most of this is already covered in Essjay controversy anyway. No use rubbing salt in anyone's wounds. -- - (Elkspeak)"

Well, we see the real reason why this article is being deleted. It is being deleted, not because it is against any of wikipedia's policies, but because it points out the major flaws in wikipedia - it rubs salt in wikipedia's wounds. Hence, Jimmy Wales' Thought police, have been sent out to squash all opposition, as always.

That's why the article is being deleted; not because there is anything wrong with the article, but because its against your own beliefs'. Thus, wikipedia's ugly secrets make make their presence known again. This is not an encylopedia; its a mere forum where one party's beliefs are presented as fact, and any questioning/critism of these facts is immediately eradicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 09:27:04

• Yup, I agree. Cloveoil 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Damn, you caught us out. And here I was going to spend a pleasant morning in my Jimbo's Stormtroopers uniform (complete with riding crop and razor wire) deleting articles about puppies and kittens and inserting lurid pictures of goat pedophilia on unsuspecting user pages. While you're at it telling Wikipedia off, could you ask Jimbo to raise our pay, please? We haven't had any checks for our Thought Police gig in quite some time. RGTraynor 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does that mean we have to cancel the Thought Police parade for May the 22nd? Bummer, I was practicing marching along with It's a long way to Tipperary . Alf^Photoman 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Forget all that: the page is an attack page, existing for no other reason than to disparage its subject. Accordingly speedy delete -- 62.25.109.196 09:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism. Where does it say that "email" is a neologism? Catchphrases passed through chain emails may be neologisms, but email itself is not. Your argument on "wherever possible" is missing something: If it is not possible, that probably means the article shouldn't exist. Google can serve as the "source" you seek: there are no results there that pertain to the subject of this article. I don't care whether there is another article criticizing Wikipedia; it's just that this one isn't it. Feel free work on Criticism of Wikipedia, WP:FAIL, Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia, Daniel Brandt, and all those other articles on Wikipedia. –Pomte 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia's entry on the word Neologism

" neologism (from Greek νεολογισμός "νέος" [neos] = new; "λόγος" [logos] = word) is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, is an example of a neologism."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism)

Thats where it says that e-mail is an neolgism.

• See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for the specific criteria of what is meant here. –Pomte 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete or redirect to Essjay controversy because it repeat information, and we shouldn't be feeding the trolls on this site. — Moe 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect without merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Basically, right now, this article amounts to defining a new term for something that's already discussed a whole lot in Wikipedia (Criticism of Wikipedia and the bazillion subarticles). We don't need yet another one. However, since this term is kind of obvious, it's a plausible redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.