1. *Nothing* in WP can be trusted. The articles constantly change even if the underlying facts don't. And, the more pernicious issue is that unless you're familiar with a topic you don't know what's missing. Some of the things that are missing are due to people removing things they don't want others to know. Considering that WP turns up at the start of most searches, it's a very pernicious influence. More on that here.

2. I run a blog with 1000 posts on one topic, tagged with over 400 tags many of them very obscure. Many of the posts are summaries/excerpts from MSM articles, but a few involve original reporting. The site was almost immediately linked by the Yahoo directory; if anyone's tried to get in there without paying you'll realize how difficult that is. I added it to the closely-related WP entry, and, in bytes, it has 100 times as much content as that WP entry.

It stayed there for several months until someone started a crusade to remove it. I went to arbitration on it and a higher-up said it wasn't eligible.

To summarize: it's got 100 times as much raw data as the WP entry, covering the subject in very great detail and a great resource for those doing research. Yet, WP doesn't want to link to it. Details here: tinyurl.com/2d6dso

3. WP is very stingy on links, so if something's there there's a good chance that someone higher-up wants it there for some agenda-based reason or there was some sort of fight over it before it was allowed to remain.

4. WP puts nofollow tags on almost all their outbound links, meaning that those linked receive no search engine benefits, even if some parts of the WP entry are based on the sites that are linked.

5. However, some interesting sites don't have nofollow tags on their links, meaning that WP funnels all the search engine juice they get from the useful idiots who link to them into a very small set of interesting sites.

6. It's interesting that so many bloggers link to WP, when WP strongly discourages linking to blogs, and when the very word "blog" is a pejorative to many there.

I won't even link to them with a nofollow tag; if I have to I just write out the URL (i.e. non-HTML format).

I used to make contributions, but I stopped for the reasons above. I've made one change there since 4/07, and it was reverted a few days later: tinyurl.com/2jmj9k

I very strongly suggest dropping all your links to WP.

The reason your blog got trashed from Wikipedia is that your blog is bigotted, biased nonsense.

I and others have challenged you on this and you basically duck doge and weave.

Your whining isn't credible

I run several sites, none of which match the description. I'm also not aware of degsme using anything other than ad hominems in past missives. There are links above, the reader is invited to check them out and decide for themselves whether degsme is in any way credible.

Your stuff is all racially biased xenophobia. No wonder you were cut off from WP.

Wikipedia is stingy with links because they are focused on editing the legitimacy of their own pages, not reviewing the legitimacy of webpages and blogs that could be potentially linked to. The pages themselves are generally brief, but accurate. Getting a source cited and linked to is difficult, but thats a GOOD thing, when factual accuracy and legitimacy are at stake.

And especially when you have a bigotted demagouge like WackCase trying to gain pretend legitimacy by exploiting those links

Use of blogs as sources is, in general, a big no-no on Wikipedia for a very good reason. Anyone who can put together a sentence can put up a blog and write, but that doesn't mean that they should be linked to in an article. Wikipedia has an excellent policy statement explaining why blogs shouldn't be used:

<link>

That's especially true for a blog that, according to a link:katrinacoverage.com query on Google, has a grand total of 3 other sites linking to it. The highest number of responses to a post is 4 comments. I also did a quick sample of the blog and found that it was almost exclusively links or excerpts from other websites, with a strong dose of personal opinion thrown in. If someone is writing a Wikipedia article then they just link or cite the source directly. You have worked hard on writing your blog, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should link to it. Directories do that job, Wikipedia does not.

Nofollow was implemented for a very good reason. People love to get their search engine ratings up higher, and what better way to do it than spamming Wikipedia?! Wikipedia owes nothing to people who want to boost their ratings.

There are certainly many instances of Wikipedia editors needlessly erasing good content. This isn't one of them.

While WP is concentrating on "editing the legitimacy of their own pages", they aren't providing a complete picture of a subject and thus those who visit their pages - due to their high rank in search results - may be being misled. For those many pages that don't include a full overview of a topic, those visitors are given an incomplete picture of a subject and most likely are not directed to another source for the details or a more complete overview.

Your links hardly constitute a broad overview or even a particularly well documented aspect of part of the complete picture.

You are confusing the idea of having demagouges from a variety of perspectives propogandizing with the idea of a well developed overall picture.

Your stuff is distorted demagougery. You have that right but any sort of credible reference site isn't gonna cite you.

One of my cases in the original message concerns personal testimony at my own blog about an event concerning me. Someone deleted that and a similar tale from someone else, since both personal testimonies were at blogs (one of which is dailykos.com).

While someone can certainly put up a fake blog, plenty of newspapers have printed fake stories or stories filled with lies. And, as long as it's a mainstream source, WP considers it gospel. And, by only considering mainstream sources as legitimate, WP only considers information legitimate if it's appeared in a mainstream source. As we know, important stories frequently fail to make the MSM and may only be reported on by bloggers. Yet, WP would have its viewers wait until the MSM covers something before they'll consider that a legitimate reference.

And, as I stated above, if WP doesn't trust anything bloggers say, why would bloggers link to them?

And, let me suggest link:http://katrinacoverage.co­m rather than without the http://

As for WP linking something directly, why don't they? There are very few links in the WP article that my site was linked in for several months. There's very little information at all. Take a look at my tags page

Wikipedia can't compete with something like that; for instance, a bit player named Patrick Rhode doesn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia at all, yet I've got a tag just for him.

If some higher up were more in line with my personal opinion as expressed at the site, this probably wouldn't be an issue.

And, as stated above, WP may be basing articles on the information at other sites, and then rewards them by either not linking to them or by linking to them with a nofollow tag.

They get a ton of links from the general web community, but they turn around and don't link back to the web community. The web community should respond by rejecting them.

You are mistaking quantity for quality.

A newspaper that prints someone's story IS more legitimate than someone printing their own story, in terms of a source. A newspaper has a journalistic reputation to consider, a board of editors and various other people who are paid to keep things as accurate as possible. I'm not sure you've got that.

That's why Wikipedia would prefer a newspaper over you. It doesn't guarantee truth, but its a better indicator of it.

So, a newspaper article that's full of lies is more accurate - in Wikipedia's eyes - than a blog post that doesn't have any lies. A misleading newspaper account is more accurate to Wikipedia than a blogger pointing out how the account is inaccurate.

And, we're supposed to trust anything in Wikipedia? How can anyone do that when lying sources have more credibility than their truth-telling critics?

And, if you have to wait for the MSM to cover some things, you might be waiting a very long time. For a perfect example, see this story. That should be a big story, yet so far it's only received MSM notice from one MSM source. Last I checked, WP doesn't even have an article on the person in question.

Contrary to general belief, Wikipedia isn't suitable as a credible source, precisely because it can be changed so easily. Whether the entries are true or lies doesn't matter, the fact that the content can be instantly changed does.

What makes newspaper stories full of lies? Who gets to verify that? What makes your blog the only place to get the truth? Who gets to verify that?

A newspaper article full of lies - uhuh. Sorry WackCase, full of lies describes your web site and your blog.

Like the "story" that you link to. As though somehow being a dual citizen is criminal and an indictment of McCain through guilt by association. Mind you it is doubly guilt by association:

• Hernandez has worked with Vincente Fox
• Therefore somehow Hernandez is guilty of something or other slimy
• And McCain is associated with Hernandez
• Therefore somehow McCain is guilty of the same something slimy that Hernandez is guilty of because he once worked with the President of our largest neighbor, ally and economic partner

Yeah, shocking that Wikipedia cut the links to your blog.

Get a life. Get some integrity.

Obviously, nowhere in my coverage of the issue do I accuse or imply either McCain or Hernandez of committing crimes. So degsme once again shows an inability to read and to think. Not only that, but anyone familiar with this topic knows how to spell "Vicente".

The issue is that one of McCain's outreach directors is a dual citizen who was a cabinet-level official in the Mexican government and who's made a long series of pro-Mexico, pro-open borders comments on cable TV shows over the years. The fact that he's outreaching to U.S. voters on McCain's behalf and the fact that he's still doing that despite McCain and his campaign manager being made aware of the issue indicates that McCain doesn't see an issue with this.

There's also the matter of him being a Senior Fellow at the Reform Institute, a group closely linked to McCain.

If you aren't already ignoring anything degsme says, let me suggest doing so now.