Monday, September 14th, 2026, 6:20 am
Being ‘in Wikipedia’ May be Indicative of Narcissism, Not Important Work or Real Importance
Filed under: Self-advertising site anyone can edit and anybody can vandalise
Two months ago: To Wikipedia, “Notability” is Just an Excuse to Hail People Who Serve Billionaires While Marginalising or Defaming the Rest
am not in Wikipedia. This means I need not worry about what people who dislike me write about me there. I prefer it that way. I’ve said this for ~15 years already, maybe longer.
Wikipedia takes a lot of money from billionaires to call them ‘philanthropists’ and censor/block/sideline their critics. This is the real ‘business model’ of Wikipedia.
Unlike a lot of the “Linux” stories in Techrights, the EPO coverage is historically significant and impactful, but this coverage is cited nowhere in Wikipedia. Why? Because the ‘litigation industry’ took over the narrative (or articles) in Wikipedia.
So does Wikipedia say the truth? Depends on the topic.
I remember pointing out that in Wikipedia people write prose about themselves. Then they say “I’m in Wikipedia” as if it is indicative of high status.
Thanks to their foolish self-promotion, however, I spotted very obvious conflicts of interest.
For almost a whole decade, for instance, the Linux Foundation (LF) was run by Microsoft GitHub shills salaries by Microsoft, and LF was pushing slop, plagiarism and exploitative prisons with Jono Bacon’s wife in the Board while LF paid him to write pro-Microsoft crap; as for his wife, she ‘bossed’ Linus Torvalds.
“Having a Wikipedia page these days is becoming a contraindicator of reliability and trustworhiness,” a friend has told me.
Being in Wikipedia, unlike being in a high-profile court for instance, is something anyone can accomplish by schmoozing the editors or tricking them (into not paying attention).
Wikipedia is, after all, merely a brand.
“I’m not in Wikipedia, I’m in my own site…” (yes, I have a site, sir)
