User:Botteville
I'm retiring now from Wikipedia after 20 years from 2005. The time has not been wasted, especially in my own education. This is a sort of picture of the academic world without the controls of the big organizations, the universities, the publishing houses, the foundations, the private organizations. I understand now why they are there, which I never did before.
At this point Wikipedia is dominated by edit warring, which it has no real means of controling. Edit warring runs up the time you have to spend to get a useful result. There is a good range of articles but they are all stubs or starting articles. If you try to get them beyond that you encounter the article czars. These collaborators operate under the banner of "consensus." They are quite shameless. They tell any lie to interfere in your development of the article. Many have obvious ulterior motives. The dictum of "good faith" allows them to quash any resistance.
But you know, this changes the character of making a contribution to Wikipedia. I wanted to work on the encyclopedia, not conduct edit wars. I'm sorry, James. You seem to have lost control of the thing. I need my time now, can't waste it on wars. Moreover, the rules force one's English into a narrow mold that is not exactly English.
Now, I know the administration does not want to hear this. James Wales wants to keep everything positive. Fine. But, keeping things positive for the sake of keeping them positive isn't my bag. I got other things I need to do with my time than edit war.
I'm keeping my login for now. If you, the administration, disagree wih that, take it away forthwith. Please don't send me messages. I don't intend to log in very often. Ciao.
4-month check-in
[edit]Society and the place of Wikipedia in it have become radically different. We are now at war with an international collusion of terror organizations that have infiltrated such formerly peaceful institutions as some of the Ivy League Scools to such a degree that the government has had to take them on. The term "weaponization" has become current. I cannot but view Wikipedia as being to a large degree weaponized against us. I note the use of "consensus" to develop negative associations of collaborators to attack editors. What they do is nothing but harassment. They distort or misstate items of the policy forcing you into long, negative exchanges with them. Unless Wikipedia can get control of this weaponization is it never going to be anything more than millions of incomplete backlogged "articles." I use the term article loosely. The enemy is interested is sowing confusion, spreading lies, and using Wikipedia and the Internet in general to psychologically harm their unsuspecting audiences. That is all against the law but I wonder how long they will be able to hide under the umbrella of education. Maybe some scrutiny is needed here. I'm staying off.Botteville (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)