There was a time when I just loved Wikipedia. In the early 1980s, the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) were planning a second edition of their semi-historical document but they realized they could not possibly handle all the cross-referencing and indexing of the envisaged new edition. The solution turned to be a major project consisting in "computerizing" the OED. They succeeded in getting successive editions but only after much effort.
Armed with the wisdom gained from hindsight, Wikipedia from the word go has a built-in web design allowing nearly unlimited indexing and cross-referencing and therefore amenable to continuous updating and editing. Its far-reaching potential could already been seen. When Wikipedia was launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales, its stated objective was to "compile the sum of all human knowledge" and make it freely available to the world. Its design immediately overrides the problem faced by the OED and conventional encyclopedias. It was not only readily amenable to new editions, it could ensure continuous development.
Sixteen years later, the free encyclopedia became the 5th most popular website in the world and was well on its way to this goal. Wikipedia was home to over million articles in over 280 languages and all of these articles are written and edited by an autonomous group of international volunteers, perhaps the biggest cooperative effort ever. Not surprisingly, Wikipedia not only became the biggest online encyclopedia, it became the biggest encyclopedia, period. It claimed to have as many as 5,675,241 articles and over 2,596,000,000 words in December 12, 2013.
Its beauty and usefulness was that you could Google anything and type the word "wiki" next to the keyword and there was a reasonable chance Wikipedia could produce a result when nothing else would. Sure, it was not as authoritative as encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, it was uneven. It could have contradictions. It could even be occasionally inaccurate. Nonetheless, it was an unparalleled source of information which no other encyclopedia could provide. If Wikipedia had an article, its very references could be followed. Most of all, it was more current than the authoritative encyclopedias. As such, Wikipedia became invaluable. Perhaps therein, lied ironically the seeds of its own destruction.
Whether by design or an accidental byproduct of its search engine, it was soon realized that within the output of any Google query, any particular item mentioned in Wikipedia would appear in the top ten list. People and companies realized that Wikipedia could provide a form of free search engine optimization (SEO) and companies flocked to having a wiki article mentioning their product. Naturally, the Wikipedia editors did not want to be a promotional medium and enforced guidelines of "notability" and "conflict of interest" (COI).
Though problematic, this issue was never the main reason for why Wikipedia has been criticized. The October, 2013 critique entitled "The Decline of Wikipedia" by Tom Simonite published in the ''MIT Technology Review" articulated a number of flaws. It pointed out that a "collection of volunteers generally work under pseudonyms and habitually bicker with each other... Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy." Nonetheless, Wikipedia's useful functionality was undeniable and it apparently took this criticism to heart, perhaps too much so.
Since the beginning of 2016, a growing activity amongst the editors of Wikipedia, was focused not on adding content but rather removing it, all in the name of improving notoriety, removing conflicts of interest and especially removing any promotion. Some of this activity is done by Wikipedia administrators in a balanced way. However, there emerged unbalanced editors like the wiki editor who calls himself "HelpUsStopSpam". The wiki editor's agenda is articulated on his own wiki site. Anything and everything he dislikes is called "spam" and he is resolute in destroying it. He applies criteria above and beyond Wikipedia's guidelines and acts like a hurricane wiping out entire articles or removing content in large gulps. He has been in skirmish and skirmish with other editors objecting to the destruction of their contributions.
There is no process for appeal. The dialog on "talk pages" is ill-balanced, i.e. the discussion is often between well-established scientists or experts with known credential/usernames and anonymous trolls like "HelpUsStopSpam''. Moreover, complaints written on his particular talk page are periodically removed from sight. These removals largely concern area of data science but have already bled into other areas and promise to expand even more. From what can be discerned by these disputes, "HelpUsStopSpam" is largely a self-employed unsuccessful individual with no credentials. Thwarted in his ambitions, his outlet is destruction of other people's contributions. You need only look at the history of his talk page and you get a sense of a nihilistic zeal similar to the Punic Wars of ancient Roman times. "Wikipedia delende este" would express his motto in Latin. In effect, he is an internet troll who has become a Wikipedia dictator in spite of numerous complaints. In the guise of preventing or removing a COI or self-promotion, he cancels what he views as any form of promotion unless it is what he values. Unfortunately, he is supported by more experienced Wikipedia editors and apparently even administrators.
What many of these self-appointed Wikipedia dictators do not appreciate is that not matter what, Wikipedia will never likely have the notoriety of a Britannica but with a moment's reflection, this is not necessarily a disadvantage. Authoritative accounts on almost any topic are better with the benefit of hindsight, often a great deal of hindsight requiring a lot of time. When researching a particular theme, especially a result in technology or Science, many of us want to know about the most recent developments even if the latter are a work in progress and may not be vindicated in the long run. We want to know what is current! Wikipedia's strength was always in providing much of the information, even if some of it has questionable accuracy.
Wikipedia is huge but it is much easier to destroy than to create. It is much easier to strip away entire articles or whole sections of articles. At the current rate, in a matter of only a few years, thanks to editors like "HelpUsStopSpam", Wikipedia will be crucified. It will be reduced in size, but not streamlined and more authoritative but simply brain-damaged. Wikipedia's useful and helpful features will be gone.
It is perhaps with a certain amount of clairvoyance that Everipedia emerged at about the same time as destructive Wikipedia troll editors like this "HelpUsStopSpam" emerged. It was salutary that Everipedia made a snapshot of Wikipedia around the time of its launch. For editors undermined by this "HelpUsStopSpam", their content has a reasonable chance of being preserved. It cannot be denied that Everipedia has gone through growing pains, needs support and is not (yet) as accessible to editing as Wikipedia was. However, in view of this mutilation of Wikipedia, this could be a sign that we need a better alternative to Wikipedia especially for Wikipedia editors, frustrated by the current state of affairs.
Help us stop "HelpUsStopSpam". Long Live Everipedia.
P.S.: This article is submitted by a Wikipedia editor who asks not to disclose his identity.