Wikipedia's stifling bureaucracy, large-scale edit wars, deeply-rooted cliques, and appeal to the socially inept have produced scores of current and former editors with an all-consuming grudge against Wikipedia and its powerusers. Many of these Wikipedians have harnessed their boiling hatred and spoken out against the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Their activism has, of course, been extremely ineffective.
But it's great drama. The internet is littered with dead blogs and surprisingly active anti-wikipedia communities that detail abuses of power, personal scandals among wikipedians, paid and biased editing, various 'cabal' leaks, and a host of other primo content. Here's a list of some of them for your entertainment.
Common terms
Wikimedia Foundation (WMF): The org that hosts Wikipedia. Known for being poorly-managed, opaque, and occasionally hiring abusive admins.
Jimmy/Jimbo Wales: Wikipedia co-founder and former porn hawker, the guy whose face you see every time Wikipedia begs for money. Known to be a bit of a gaffing idiot who stumbled onto a successful idea during the 90's dotcom boom. In Wikipedia's early days, he was embroiled in numerous scandals, so the Wikimedia Foundation stripped him of any real power.
Larry Sanger: Wikipedia's other co-founder and public critic. Tried and failed to create several Wikipedia competitors.
Admin/Administrator/Sysop:
Bureaucrat: (unpaid) giga
Steward: (unpaid) ultra-giga
Arbitration Committee/Arbcom: The system Wikipedia uses to settle disputes and discipline users via a panel of respected editors (i.e. powerusers). Exceptionally dramatic.
Articles for Deletion (AfD): The system where editors vote on whether to keep an article and include their rationale. Unsurprisingly gamed during edit wars and through the involvement of cabal members, causing seethe and drama.
Request for Adminship (RfA): The system for nominating and voting in admins. Success is achieved through popularity and politicking.
Cabal: A clique of editors and/or admins who spend way too much time on Wikipedia. It's such an entrenched and undeniable part of the culture that Wikipedia pokes fun at it.
Vandalism: The act of making high-quality, accurate contributions to Wikipedia.
Wikipedo/Wikipedocracy: A pejorative that developed due to the perception that Wikipedia was too friendly towards libertarians. You can find gentle reference to these scandals here.
Israel-Palestine: The cause of initial disillusionment for a huge proportion of anti-Wikipedians. The most controversial topic on the wiki.
Blogs/Sites
Spoiler alert: Like all blogs, they're dead. Still a good read though.
Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics.) (still active wtf)
GenderDesk (criticism from a leftist/feminist perspective)
Wikipedia Watch (dead, formerly run by the guy who effectively killed Encyclopedia Dramatica.)
Wikipedia, We Have a Problem (dead but lots of content still archived)
Wikitruth (dead)
Wiki Cabal (dead, short-lived)
Boycott Wikipedia (inactive since 2015)
Collaborative Learning (inactive since 2011)
The Journal That Speaks Truth to Wikiality (inactive since 2011)
Parker Peters Livejournal (inactive since 2007)
Wikiwatch (critical blog from 2006)
Wikisucks (another one from 2006)
Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance (inactive since 2005(?))
Swastikapedia (technically a blog post but old criticism from 2004)
The corpse of ED also has numerous pages on Wikipedia power brokers, all a decade stale but they summarize the dramatic happenings surrounding particular people like SlimVirgin (RIP).
Forums
WIkipedia Review the OG. It's now a zombie forum, though you can still access the old blog and access the threads through the forum's 'lofi version'.
Wikipedia Critic (failure to launch)
Wikirev (dead breakaway forum, not well-archived)
Subreddits
These are all very small but much more populated with content than the average tiny sub. If you look at most users' post histories (e.g. /u/bbb23sucks -- bbb23 is a Wikipedian), it's ALL about wikipedia.
/r/Wikipedians (not intended to be anti-wiki, but for all intents and purposes it is)
/r/wikipediaafdwatch (a bot that posts every time an article's nominated for deletion)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I created /r/MeanwhileOnWikipedia some years ago without any real intention to do anything with it. After a few months however a couple of disgruntled professional wikipedia editors decided it would be swell to try and use it to voice their outrage and attack the site.
Had no idea what they were talking about. The dynamics on Wikipedia are strange and, to me, very uninteresting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
lmao, you should've known that it'd get taken over
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was more so that admins dealt with my constant non-conformity by obliterating or giving away some of my stuff.
Wikipedia is very weird though. The behind the scenes of that place isn't like Reddit or any other site. The people there seem like they have that same crazy, empty look Scientologists have.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're far from the only one that sees Wikipedia as a culty group. Now they have two dozen sexual harassment scandals, possibly surpassing those of Danny Masterson.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unsurprising. I didn't want anything to do with them. It's a real shame how humans seem to always bastardize things.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Indeed. Too many hallowed institutions have gotten caught in such rots from time to time yet I noticed a curious pattern where if I spoke against Wikipedia on Reddit, the hive-mind will pile on me and implied that I am a bad person, cheater, vandal, et cetera as if I'm the only sane person in a mental asylum.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
found the incel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
huh?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
that's actually a decent sub idea tho, there are some hilariously shitty "facts" on wikipedia that never get taken down cause no ones cares enough/the people in charge are politically brain rot
would prob get yalled pretty quick tho for spreading hate or something
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
found the incel
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you gotta get a better bit than that pinkie
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context