The current Wikipedia is no longer the open collaboration of articles on persons or events of interest but based only on the dissemination of information by a bunch of people interested in censorship and the inclusions they deem worthy regardless of the importance regionally or otherwise.
Their interpretation discounts credible sources such as IMDB and others. One editor even went as far as to dismiss a submission on a person in the artistic creation of a television series calling them merely an employee. If that is true then that means that sports team members should be dismissed because they are merely employees as well and the same for politicians and any one else that was paid to contribute to any endeavor.
These “admins/editors” are merely volunteers and clearly band together when they disagree with others to berate and dismiss the importance of articles based on their interpretation rather than on facts. When asked to specify exactly why the article is not notable their answers were personal in nature and not based in fact.
Wiki defines that a person that is a part of a collaborative effort that is accredited or garnered awards or otherwise is notable and should be included in the Wiki. However, because the sources are from IMDB and not listed with internet databases or articles that may not have been in existence during that time period, these saboteurs of the vision of Wiki have decided to not include it based on personal bias and have attacked not only the submitter but anyone who disagrees with them.
Below are some others incidences of the same type of censorship:
As a three-time banned WP editor who has made thousands of edits with hundreds of socks and different IPs, I believe wholeheartedly in doing so. It forces self-appointed WP admins, poobahs, secret-agents and other Jimbo wannabees to resort to what they should be doing all along: monitoring edits for vandalism or for lack of factual citation, neutrality and overall improvement. I obeyed every WP rule initially however silly and counterproductive, but after being banned the first time by an admin who ended up being found using socks of his own, quickly learned what a game it is to the hardcore sock hunters. As a former Silicon-valley technical writer, I refuse to play their game now (including autobio articles) and like forcing them to find fault in my otherwise letter-perfect edits. They are wasting time with their self-imposed policies that no other collective- or joint-work publishing group observes.
Wikedpedia will soon be replaced by Goodstuff or something created by Google or Apple, and all this drama will be a thing of the passt.
Bans are a tricky thing for a site that bills itself as “the encyclopedia anyone can edit.” If literally anyone can edit, how is it possible to prohibit specific unwelcome individuals from wandering over to a library or Internet café and editing anonymously to their heart’s content?
‘Tis the Season to be Banning at Wikipedia
“Well, it isn’t possible, of course, and many so-called “banned editors” are merrily editing away as you read this. Nonetheless, much of the culture of the site is pervaded by a “sock-hunting” mentality, where eagle-eyed sock-hunters keep close watch for any edits that look like they might be coming from a banned editor. If they find such an edit, they’ll quickly undo it (without regard to whether the edit itself was helpful or accurate) and get the account blocked as a “sockpuppet” of the banned editor. There are a variety of helpful templates one can slap on such an editor’s user page, scarlet-letter-style, that announce to the world that this editor is Banned and/or a Sockpuppet. The templates typically come complete with a helpful red stop sign icon to signal to readers that this is Serious Business.”