Document without a name
Reader’s opinion
June 16, 2008
Dear Mr. Petit, I find you to be too harsh toward your readers.
Wikipedia is a huge platform that has, rightly or wrongly, gained considerable fame. I made edits to an article that seemed both incomplete and incorrect. It was about the “clean car” (at the time, no quotation marks were used); that article has since been removed. My edits were quickly rejected with disdain. In the discussion page, I concluded that its author (or rather, its gatekeeper) relied on the French legal definition of a “clean car”. That’s when I realized that the French-language Wikipedia has become a purely French affair, one that undermines the very concept of science (by confusing law—which is a set of norms—with science, which should be based on facts). Nevertheless, I managed to achieve my goal: establishing a link between this topic and bicycles. But the amount of time I spent seemed excessive compared to the results obtained.
Regarding this case of rejection of my article request, the swift reactions from certain administrators and their lack of any explanation seem genuinely neurotic: the request might reveal some “family secret.”
A secret whose origin lies in the almost incestuous relationships some administrators have with the content of articles.
Paradoxically, it’s precisely the existence of this article that would prove the administrators are right. But without maturity and experience, such a paradox is hard to accept.
From what I’ve observed within certain associations, Wikipedia greatly magnifies the childish behavior of those seeking illusory fame.
This is regrettable, as scientific literacy is essential for our society’s future.
I support your criticism of this online encyclopedia, as well as your critique of the referee system that stifles revolutionary approaches in science.
I also hope you succeed in achieving your goals regarding your ongoing experiments. It’s an understatement to say they fascinate me.
Sincerely, Antoine Février
P.S.: I was astounded by the existence of a “Hall of Fame” for former members, a list of birthdays to be wished upon, and so on. This reinforces your idea of Wikipedia being a secret society. There’s a bizarre personalization of this encyclopedia.P.P.S.: Is it conceivable that appointing someone seemingly weak-willed as head of the encyclopedia is the deliberate choice of certain administrators?