Wikipedia hopes to make editing user-friendly

great step!!

No, please don't. If can't figure such a trivial thing out I'm not terribly interested in reading what you have to say.

One major thing that turns potential contributors off is the few people that seem to control everything that is submitted. They claim to be on the lookout for "link spam" but their own contributions are rife with self-promoting entries and links. I found this out the first time I tried contributing. If you are not one of the "gestapo" who patrol the wiki, you are not welcome. Personal and self-promoting links are prohibited except for the 'gestapo', who use them freely and abundantly for their own profit.
Heck, I would have been happy to tell them this to help them improve contributions, and all I would have charged is $890.00!

Really? I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikinews, and I've never noticed any organized gestapo. There is the occasional out of control admin, but eventually they get dealt with.

Occasional rogue admins are common on any site that uses volunteer admins (like gaming sites), and Wikipedia is of course no different. You just have to work around them on the rare times you encounter such people, which usually isn't hard:).

If you're encountering a lot of resistance to your edits from other editors (and admins as well for that matter), then I respectfully submit that the problem probably isn't with "all those other people"; the problem is with you.

http://www.wikipe...tch.org/
http://educate-yo...08.shtml
Wikipedia Scanner
http://virgil.gr/31.html

The list goes on and on... They dont deserve the money until they monitor the admins....

I've seen those sites before. Most of it is people posting articles like "OMG! Proof of Bigfoot!", linking to their personal webspace as a source, and then being mad when that gets deleted.

As I said, their are some legitimate complaints that people have, but most of the complaints are just bunk.

Wikipedia is a contender for one of the best sites on the entire Internet. If not THE.

Those that give it flack just fear the spread of knowledge.

As for criticisms of "truthiness," I think the Colbert stunts prove that there is a very high level of quality control, and any information consumed should be valuable to the utmost degree.

Really? I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and its sister projects like Wikinews, and I've never noticed any organized gestapo. There is the occasional out of control admin, but eventually they get dealt with.

Slim virgin and friends? Jimbo and his circle? The problem is quite real in some areas of wiki as all it takes to overpower others is numbers.

Luckily such people mostly concern themselves with popular topics and scientific articles (of which I am a frequent reader) are left alone.

So there certainly are some black sheep but all in all they are far outnumbered by great many good editors. I've learned quite a lot reading wiki and it was often the knowledge which would be difficult to locate otherwise so I believe the project as a whole has tremendous value and I completely support it.

oh u mean

wikipedia censoring propaganda is geting bit loose

doe to popular presure?

the gestapo is so sbutile

ofcourse 99.99 procent od the dumb sheet cant even notice it if its straigh in there face

aka you probably