Hello, kpop fans, I'd like to share few words with you. Warning! Parental Advisory! Graphic Content! Rated R! Spoiler: Warning message Viewers be warned, the following “video” may contain graphic content, expletives, violence, gore and which is not suitable and may cause discomfort for minors and kids. Proceed at own risk! No animals are harmed in the making of this “video”. Prelude: Stereotypes. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, huh? Have you ever feel eager to make some edits on Wikipedia when you notice some incompleteneess on Wikipedia articles? Whenever you start asking questions why this and that has never been included or errors have never been rectified and whatnot, you’ll most likely receive these typical responses. “Anyone can write on Wikipedia.” “Don’t worry about ppl sabotaging and altering facts, it’ll be fixed in due course”. Have you ever wondered why certain top groups members don’t get their own individual page, and not others? Or some of their important info are missing? Lo and behold, there's more to this than meets the eye's. No, things are not as easy as it seem, it’s going to be a tough challenge if you were to begin your journey on wikipedia. Be warned my friends, take my words as precaution. A quick search and you’ll know what goes on behind the curtain. It’s not that no one wanted to created them. I’ll get to that later. [P] texts denote my presumption throught the whole text(b4 and after) Volume 1: Prologue The editing box If u are talking about the editing box and learning how to edit? U can refer to articles created in the past and emulate the standards and formatting/foundation, aint it? Cosy, easp peasy, right? Hold your beer, just wait till you get out of the editing box. FAQ sections This is where the fun begins. If u think u’ll be attended with nice pretty lady with hospitality with a smile on their face, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. If you are there for quick answers or shortcuts for FAQs, you’ll most likely be redirected to appropriate pages containing list of FAQs instead of getting answers directly. Avoid asking questions if u can, you’ll most likely be schooled and embarrassed if you do not ask questions properly. Volume 2: Dark Side of Wikipedia-Behind The Scenes Only include relevant points will be discussed. It can get ugly, disgusting and shady. The way Wikipedia works is chaotic and complicated. Spoiler: Volume 2 Content. TLDR? Skip to Volume 3 at the post below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture Rankings and hierarchy Wikipedia is a democratic place! All users are equal! No special privileges! Tell u what, wrong! Users are not equal on Wikipedia, please drop the “anyone can edit anything and everything on Wikipedia” misconception. U need to be a veteran to be have full-fledged account that can edit anything and everything and take part in important decisions. Get used to be swarmed, mobbed for making simple mistakes. Wikipedia’s community [p start]Although this could be my presumption, Wikipedia’s full of sharks, hyenas, crocodiles and wolves disguising as humans. I find that some of the senior members can be quite condescending and snobbish. Especially those who have been on Wikipedia since its inception. At one point, they have somewhat regarded Wikipedia as their 2nd home or even turf. Thereby, comes this strong sense of protection to uphold the original wiki values and safeguard their wiki kingdom of o’holy sacred ground from being polluted by impurities. This gives off a vibe of them being a brotherhood/cult, who keeps preaching and brainwashing with their own wiki’s doctrine like a propaganda. I guess because it’s a free and non-profit community, these kind of behaviors tend to get unregulated. Their modus operandi is akin to seniority equals superiority, exuding the stubborn aura of “my way or no way”. [P ends] This made me think, who are they to think that they have authority over others? Power conferred by God? Who elected them? There are even some problematic users who indulge themselves in schooling and harassing newbies and seek pleasure from that, which make wikipedia a hostile place for new editors. Feeling lost? Have no idea what da heck am I talking about? Keep reading. How decisions are made [iianm start]From the ground up, wikipedia’s rules and regulations, policies are built by early adopters. They layeth the foundation from there on out. [iianm end]Now, how important decisions about the direction of Wikipedia especially are made? By consensus voting. This part of the voting process is vaguely defined. Few people voicing agree and disagree and that’s it? I can’t help myself but think that the voting SOP and execution is too abrupt and improper. For certain decisions, less than 20 voters could usurp and represent billions of online users to decide the fate of Wikipedia. (it’s true, I’ll show u proof later). It’s as if these small fraction of people can shove words into silent majority’s mouth. According to their logic, a New Yorker can literally vote for California Governorship election. My goodness. Busybody Yes, you can literally be a busybody and stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. You don’t even need credibility or expertise to meddle with the people and articles. By people, I mean discussions, arguments and disputes; by articles, I mean basically any wiki articles. I can even edit medical sections even if I’m not a pharmacist myself. Let’s talk about the discussions part. Once again, you need no expertise to meddle or even manipulate(if u have time) with the course of outcome as you are even allowed to vote during the decision making moments and that count towards final verdict. Better still, I can literally stalk the dispute sections and rig how the matter would develop. I can offer my opinion and influence the outcome of any discussions and even dispute resolutions by voting, and it counts towards the final verdicts. Therefore, if you happen to be in professional arena, please don’t blindly trust Wikipedia. Moreover, knowledge especially in the professional field, isn’t free. Stop lurking for answers on Wikipedia. Secondly, the concensus voting, there's no hard and fast rule deadline for it, it's whatever the powers that be deem fit/feel like it, talk about wiki transparency eh?. 3rdly, gotta be the anonymity of voting process. U know who voted what option, my god… As aforementioned, the way Wikipedia works is chaotic and complicated. From what Ive observed, when it comes to making important decision, it’s not by democratic system, instead it’s more inclined towards “seniority and the powers that be on the community”, where your opinion doesn’t matter. They preach their ideologies repeatedly until it becomes the truth, I’ll illustrate later. Golden rule and literal rule are not properly defined, those veterans and authorities with influence can have their own way of interpretations, resulting the judge made laws. Whatever the powers that be say are absolute and are not to be questioned by any means. Reminds you of certain tyrant or dictator whose country resides in North, no? Notability Notability? The way they define and interpret it across different languages can be vastly different. Certain kpop group members have their own articles in at least 3 different languages but not English? They are really contradicting themselves and shooting themselves in their own foot with this one. [P start] When confronted why the difference in treatment, don’t expect them to back down, they are going to indulge themselves in polite pandering to escape with twisted logic. Don’t be surprised if they rebuked with “we do things on case-by-case basis here, preferential treatment suspicion doesn’t exist”. The way I see it, I thought notability or popularity per se is vague? I mean, notability is not quantitative, how can a person come up with statistics and exact figures to back up claims? Food for thought, just because an individual artist has done some work on his/her own, does that mean it’s “prominent”, “popular” or “good” enough? How good is considered good? Are there any hard and fast rules or criteria specifying how the notability of a person is decided? Is popularity something tangible? What metrics exactly are used to gauge popularity? Or is wiki users implying kpop artists have to be successful in western countries to qualify for an article in English despite having their own respective articles in other languages? That western market relevancy all over again? Unless wiki imply that English domain/community of wiki articles represent only western community, then in this regard I admit certain kpop group members are not that popular in Western countries. Even so, this logic is flawed too! English is a global language that is the most widespread! Westerners are not the only ones speaking English! Just because their proficiency isn’t up to the native level doesn’t mean they are not part of the English community. As to how wide and popular is English, don’t get me started on that one. Exhibit of usurp and misrep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture music shows are not relevant, scroll to bottommost. Neutrality [P start]Wiki is supposed to take neutral stand by default and be impartial, amirite? No, that’s fantasy. At least in kpop section, that’s true.[P end] I will explain in detail in kpop chapter. This is actually the bright side of Wikipedia, whatever stunt a user tries to pull on the wiki websites, all of them are logged and recorded for the public to see. With that, you can analyze a pattern and draw conclusion on motive of certain users. The ugly side? From the editing logs, even you know for sure some users are just ouright rude, unpleasant, cocky and belligerent and blatantly disregard rules and regulations but somehow managed to slip past unscathed. Why is that so? I’ll get to that later.