Honeypot Venus Flytraps of Wikipedia criticism

Confronted with the statement of a Wikipedia editor reporting how to avoid being targeted by groups with a history of harassing Wikipedians, “when I'm reading Wikipediocracy or one of the Wikipedia criticism sites, because I know that they scoop up IP addresses, I use an IP obfuscator for that."

An expelled Wikipediocracy manager retorted,

Honeypots, venus flytraps : "Bear in mind that we assembled more than 350 profiles of Wikipedia insiders and had little difficulty finding the real identities of about 90% of them. Not only are they paranoid, they are incompetent. - Eric Barbour"

There is a notorious case in which one amateur crank frustrated a cabal of experts scientists trying to describe uranium trioxide. It’s a scholar's worst nightmare when : you discover your fellow editors are the bullies who used to gang up on you in sixth grade.

In multiple cases, Wikipedia contributors also described the threat of intimidation and harassment originating from organized groups whose members view doxxing Wikipedia administrators as a matter of policing the encyclopedia and providing a form of public service.[^]

It also emerges that Wikipedia has a hard time retaining experts to edit their articles. The site, with its ever-present manias for lists, has many scholars who have given up on the site, several more who are upset, and only a few who are happy with the status quo. The vandalism problem has received a lot of publicity, but that one’s actually fairly minor, or at least relatively fixable. More aggravating is “edit creep,” the gradual deterioration of a polished article by well-meaning but careless edits, and, even worse, “cranks,” which are classified with typical Wiki-precision as “parasites, scofflaws or insane.” And a crank can single-handedly destroy an article’s usefulness.