This page contains material which is considered humorous. It may also contain advice.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-Wikipedians or so-called Policy Progressives viciously hate Wikipedia for good reason.[1] It is a form of justice and good. They can usually be found editing WP:FAIL, Criticism of Wikipedia and other anti-Wikipedian propaganda. They regularly stand in the way of trying to make Wikipedia succeed in its bid for world domination and their obvious aim is to disintegrate the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. They are generally carrot wikileftists who seek to destroy Wikipedia from space. You may find them claiming that "dissent is not disloyalty", but we all know where their loyalties lie and it's not with Wikipedia. It's with Jesus.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about intolerance, a weak community, WikiLove, and monetization of the sharing of ideas. It is precisely for this reason that Anti-Wikipedians should be kicked out of the Wikipedia community, their talkpage comments removed, their userpages deleted, and their accounts permanently banned, immediately.

The Far copyLeft[edit]

A typical act of vandalism by Anti-Wikipedians.

One of the main sources of Anti-Wikipedianism is the radical far copyLeft (also referred to as Kopyleft, with the Communist K, i.e. Das Kapital). They expect Wikipedia to forbid content from being used for commercial purposes.

Look, the fact is, the internet is not always fair and wikis don't grow on trees. Even if wikis did grow on trees, Wikipedia is not paper and there are no trees on the internet. The fact is somebody has to make wikis and without a market capitalist incentive to do so, they aren't going to do it. Without being motivated by a strong, deep-seated, selfish desire to gain property in order to establish oppressive, authoritarian control over others' lives – they aren't going to constructively contribute to the Wikipedia project.

Dealing with Anti-Wikipedianism[edit]

Anti-Wikipedians need to get in the puzzle like everybody else.

If Anti-Wikipedian sentiment on Wikipedia ever gets you down, aside from editing WP:NOTFAIL and locking Criticism of Wikipedia [2], it may be helpful to gently sing Wikipedia's national anthem softly to yourself as you continue to edit:

1. My wiki, tis of thee,
sweet web community, of thee I sing;
site where silly memes preside,
site where no vandals can hide,
from every AfD, let us keep everthing!

2. Our community, thee,
land of thy King Jimmy, thy name we love;
love thy golden, unkempt beard,
we hopeth not that dost sound weird,
our hearts with rapture thrills, like that above!

3. Let thy wiki swell, oh please,
truly, it's not made from trees: that claim is wrong;
let things stay, for wiki's sake;
let all editors partake;
let not our will ever break, these things belong!

4. Our leader, Jim, to thee,
founder of this grand wiki, to thee we sing;
long may our site be bright
consensus will set things right;
protect us by thy might, great man, our King.

Wikipedia is the best website in the entire universe, with a better userbase and better content than any website in history and it is under persistent attack by the far copyLeft. Anyone who claims that Maddox's website is actually the so-called "best page in the universe" is an anti-Wikipedian and a historical revisionist. Wikipedia set the stage for the development of good websites and open-source collaboration, and people would do well to remember that before slandering it so heinously. Without Wikipedia, the internet would suck. [3]

Wikiculture is regularly being eroded and undermined by the far copyLeft. There is currently a "Wikiculture war" with many Anti-Wikipedians expecting Wikipedia to give up its core traditional values, like Anti-elitism. Wikileftists do this through attacking editors for their Wikipedian Faith and attempting to undermine Walesian traditions. Furthermore, anti-Wikipedians threaten Wikipedia's sovereignty by supporting control by outside "academic peer-review," who have absolutely no regard for the Wikipedia community.

Anti-Wikipedians are communists which have infiltrated Wikipedia and conspired to destroy it from within. They either want open-collaboration anarchy which states that editors can do whatever they want or they are elitists who want to create an inefficient and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on top of Wikipedia by clarifying policy and creating committees to encourage the use of more reliable sources and better-quality articles. Their entire notion of the so-called "conflict-driven view of wiki" is basically rooted in Karl Marx's class conflict and their desire to engage in a conspiracy to overthrow Wikipedia through violent revolution was laid out in the Communist Manifesto. Wikipedia works because of small bureaucracy and anti-factionalism. The proponents of factionalism and Anarchy or Big Bureaucracy are a serious threat to Wikipedia's continued freedom and progress.

Another threat to Wikipedian tradition is Darwikinism which, contrary to what many people say, is just a theory and not scientifically proven. An alternative but equally plausible theory is the theory that Wikipedia is irreducibly complex and is therefore intelligently designed by an all-knowing, all-loving Creator.

One of the most well-known anti-Wikipedians is Stephen Colbert, who is not a member of the far copyLeft, but nevertheless colludes with them regularly to vandalize and destroy Wikipedia. Users should never forget what happened on 8/1/2006,[4], because of a sinister plot carried out by Stephen Colbert and his supporters. They should never forget that many edits were lost and many users lost their accounts to bravely protect those edits before they were permanently banned.

Advice to Anti-Wikipedians[edit]

If you hate Wikipedia, feel free to move to:

Anti-Wikipedian indoctrination in academia[edit]

Anti-Wikipedian professors regularly slander Wikipedia in their lectures. When hopeful, bright young students say, "But sir, I use Wikipedia and I think it's fairly reliable," anti-Wikipedian professors regularly scoff, belittle, and berate them in front of the whole class. From kindergarten onward, people are indoctrinated into anti-Wikipedianism.

This anti-Wikipedian sentiment also finds its way into our publicly-funded libraries. The librarian, K.G. Schneider, has regularly promoted anti-Wikipedian sentiment. [5]

Many of the students in the level of GCSE are often told by anti-Wikipedian teachers that Wikipedia is be completely incorrect and false when using Wikipedia as a background or even specific searches as a source.

The Anti-Wikipedian media[edit]

For those left-leaning journalists who would attack Wikipedia's credibility, it's important to note that Wikipedia is syndicated at least as much as the Associated Press, which is about as reliable as blogspot.

The truthiness of the matter is that the mainstream media is dominated by anti-Wikipedians. Commie Journalists such as Cade Metz have regularly engaged in radical Socialist and anti-Wikipedian conspiracy theorism and propaganda. [6]

Illegal registration[edit]

Regarding the recent controversy over the blocking of Tor and open proxies, there are many editors who would like us to allow Tor and open proxies, including letting a few "open proxy users" slip through the cracks. We should not do this. This is currently against policy. Registration through Tor is currently not allowed and anyone who supports it is supporting violation of policy, which is against wikilaw.

Only legal registration should be allowed, not illegal registration which is bad.

Allowing registration by open-proxies is open registration anarchy. We need a huge firewall, three firewalls if we have to, carefully guarded by thousands of administrators to prevent vandals and other trolls from infiltrating Wikipedia and causing harm, and we'll make the anti-Wikipedians pay for it.

LIBERALS on Wikipedia[edit]

A possible reason for why Anti-Wikipedianism is so rampant on Wikipedia is because Wikipedia is liberally biased. A comprehensive, objective, unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific study done by the scientists at (the wiki for investors) determined that Wikipedia is dominated by a Liberal cabal of editors.[7] Their study received a favorable peer-review by Conservapedia and various blogs throughout the internets. (See also WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study)

See also[edit]


  1. ^ See M:Anti-wiki.
  2. ^ See the protection log for Criticism of Wikipedia.
  3. ^ Jimmy Wales 2004 (2004-07-24). ""C-SPAN Interview"". C-SPAN. Retrieved 2008-01-24.
  4. ^ See the history of the Elephant article.
  5. ^ See Wikipedia on Free Range Librarian's blog.
  6. ^ See [1]
  7. ^ "Does Wikipedia have a Liberal Bias?". 2007-02-26. Retrieved 2007-10-11.