Wikipedians: The people who inhabit the Land of the West. They are noted for their use of yellow colors. They were held in bondage by the Wicked Witch of the West, until Dorothy* freed them. - Source: Wikipedia

Wiki Country: The western portion of the Land of Oz. Home to the Wikipedians and many other small groups of people and other creatures including the WikiElves, WikiGnomes, WikiFairies, WikiGremlins, and WikiOgres. - Source: Wikipedia

* It is a matter of some debate within Wiki Country, who Dorothy represents? Or to put it another way, what prominent Wikipedian's experience most closely parallels Dorothy's?

Wikipedia's version of the Wizard of Oz is below as provided by YouTube user: kjcharmedfreak. This also happens to be Oz's version of Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, Oz's entry on Wikipedia is quite extensive, and some have credited Oz's early coverage of Wikipedia as crucial to its later success. That and all the flying monkeys on loan from Oz to Wikipedia who keep track of your edits and who we call Wikipedia Admins. The video is really quite good, this story line is that Dorothy finds herself in the Land of Wikipedia as a noob editor. She is helped along the way by her three new friends, and you'll have to decide who they represent? Click twice on the button to launch it.

Here the Wicked Witch of the West and one of her minions contemplate how to add Google pay per click ads to Wikipedia, phase out its neutral point of view, and plan to send Toto to doggy heaven. The Wicked Witch ultimately fails to achieve her goals due to the efforts of the deletionist Dorothy, who votes that the Witch is not notable. This vote causes the Witch to melt into the ground while exclaiming, "What a World Encyclopedia that anyone can edit! I'll see you in hell Dorothy!" 

Oz trivia question:There are four witches in the Wizard of Oz. Three of them are: The Wicked Witch of the West who is Dorothy's nemesis, the Wicked Witch of the East who has a house land on her, and Glinda who is the good witch of the South in the book version, but of the North in the movie. Who is the fourth witch? Post a comment on the Blog with your answer. (http://Blog.IHateWikipedia.com) The winner will receive an all expenses paid trip to Oz or the Wikipedia Home Page, at JokeCat's discretion.

Help find the Wikipedian Woman. Vote by commenting at the I Hate Wikipedia Blog. The choices are: Judy, Margaret and write-in candidates.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK Some of these pages you are looking at may not be work safe! If a boss or coworker sees them, claim that it was spam and blame the IT guys.

Watch the Wiki-Man from YouTube:

Angela Beesley has referred to this website: "A blog called "I hate Wikipedia" isn't a reliable source..." The issue was Wikipedia's page on Wikimedia. They can't seem to get Wikimedia's IRS form 990 on there. I provided it, in a link to my site, since you can't upload pdf files to Wikipedia. Angela Beesley removed the link. A 990 is what state Attorney Generals and charity watch dog groups use to evaluate non-profit organizations. Here is my blog entry on the matter: Wikimedia's 990  As of 7/14/07, the 990 still isn't there. I guess I'll have to be the source here, and it is on my page five. I find it hard to believe that as much as Wikipedia looks at itself, there doesn't seem to much interest in their money. My opinion of Angela Beesley is that she's not a CPA, but not everyone can be. But there's still time for her, one only needs a four year degree and to pass the CPA exam, and then a year or two of practice working for a CPA. But it looks like she's more of an editor with over 50,000 edits, with only one mistake made that I know of, and everyone's entitled to one mistake, it says so right in Wikipedia. People keep nominating the article about her on Wikipedia for deletion. I think the next time that happens, I'll vote to keep it. So, that's my first Admin Endorsement, which means, this website endorses her.

Angela Beesley (born August 3, 1977) is a British Internet entrepreneur. She is a co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia. Involved in Wikipedia since 2003, Beesley was elected onto the Board of Trustees of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2004, and re-elected in 2005. During this time, she was active in editing content and setting policy, such as privacy policy, within the Foundation. After serving for two years, in July 2006 Beesley resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. In October 2004, she founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. - source: Wikipedia   Her Blog, WikiAngela appears below:

This section of my site has recently been edited. I've decided to be a bit less negative, and I have a better understanding of Wikipedia now. And I've made mistakes, as you'll  be able to see. The archived content from my 6/25/07 page is here and selected content is below. Onward and upward from here.

Wikipedia faces a problem. It must decide what content, and in some cases, what links to allow? When for profit sites have links on Wikipedia (WP) as it does on WP's RuneScape page, how is it decided which ones belong there? On the RuneScape page, a link to one's site is money in the bank. So the issue is going to be fought over. I'd like to compare the financials of some of these RuneScape sites to Wikipedia's financials.

Here's something like what you find when try to edit their RuneScape page:

PLEASE don't add more fansites to this list without further discussion on the talk page. These are the most popular by Alexa ranking, and none of the others are close, so the current consensus is to keep these ONLY on here. There are a couple that are fairly large, but not close to these - so unless the consensus changes, these are the only ones on here. Comments below explain why.

Link to Wiki's RuneScape page

All the "fansites" are commercial and run ads. Some of the ads promise get rich in schemes related to RuneScape. Here is the text from an ad run on RuneHQ on 9/17/06: "Welcome to www.Runescapeguide.com Are You Ready To Be A Millionaire in Runescape? Learn the secrets that Jagex doesn't want you to know!!!" (WP ought to consider dropping all links to sites that run ads with 3 exclamation points in them.)

This is not a question of fact, of having an encyclopedia that is accurate. It is a question of what for-profit sites WP endorses and drives traffic and money to? I'll admit it's not an easy situation. One option is to have people find these sites using Google. There are others that I am sure have been considered. The issue isn't going away in my opinion though.

Wikipedia offers the reason for picking fansites based on their Alexa rankings. Well, why do they have the most traffic? I have to think the owners of the linked to RuneScape fansites praise Wikipedia every day as their ad revenue transfers to their bank account. We could perhaps conclude that quanity is more important than quality to Wikipedia here. 

JokeCat gets banned from editing Wikipedia for trying to take the Wikipedia username: IHateWikipedia.com on April 1st, 2006.

As near as I can make out, Sango123 banned me. We covered the subjects of: Wikipedia (WP) being too easily offended by usernames, WP admins hiding their identities, and the lack of Wikipedian humor.

There are other funny names used on WP. I happen to think it's funny, and that admins can continue on with their work, even after having read the name: IHateWikipedia.com without the need to see a grief councilor. Who was being protected here?

JokeCat talks with Rory096

What can I say about Rory096? Direct answers aren't his strong suit. It was a non-productive exchange. I was trying to get an explanation of what was going on? Someone wrote on the editing page something like: 'Don't add any links here.' If the page isn't locked, apparently this is supposed to do the job. It didn't work so well in my case. It seems this is another issue that WP has to deal with.

Part of Wikipedia's problem is that once one of their human volunteers ban someone, they won't explain themselves or do a poor job of it. My dealings with Rory096 and Sango123 were less than ideal. I admit their jobs can be difficult, and that Wikipedia relies on qualified admins. With hindsight, what I am looking for from them is converting people they deal with, to be Wikipedia editors, the most positive outcome I can think of. Another important thing I learned in accounting school is that, "Everyone is in marketing." When dealing with people, the first thought should be, what can I do to help use of the product?

Sango123 appears to be on a long vacation from WP and Rory096 seems to be on fair use image patrol going after images that may not belong on Wikipedia.

There is another issue having to do with Wikipedia Admins duplicating their talk pages elsewhere on the Internet, but that's an issue for another day.

Here Dorothy is reviewing her decision to trust the Wikipedia of Oz. She has just learned the article on her has been nominated for deletion. There are claims it was poorly written, with most of it being un-verifiable, especially that section about the fictional place called Kansas, and that it seems too much like the promotion of a movie.

She is also troubled that the nomination was made by Maxwell House, one of the many sockpuppets of the Wicked Witch of the West.

MFG Wikipedia - Die freie Enzyklopadie
This is in German and JokeCat is little weak in that language, but I think MFG means Message from God, and that seems plausible. I mean, isn't it?

Selected Criticisms of Wikipedia from: www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia

DannyWilde: I feel like there is absolutely no measure of gratitude from anyone in the Wikipedia community for all those edits; instead, after all that contribution, I just got harassed and bullied by a series of fairly irrational administrators. I was also accused of all kinds of nutty things like "vandalism", even after I'd spent a lot of time reverting vandalism.

Fuelwagon: Don't criticize an admin in any way. Don't criticize their content, don't criticize their behaviour on talk, don't tell them they're breaking policy. They'll get their other admin friends to rally around them, they'll start attacking you, and they'll block you for some non-existent policy violation. Whatever you do, do not criticize an admin by using the dispute resolution process. It doesn't matter how legitimate your complaint is. The old-timers support a system... that treats newer editors with a hammer, and old-timers with velvet gloves. This is a bunch of kings arguing for "divine rights".

Grace Note: (to Raul654) There was an "agreement"... [only] because you blocked and harassed editors who didn't want it... You didn't address the arguments that were put forward... is that a good way to resolve issues? Is your aim simply to win, regardless of the bitterness caused? I guess it is. I've never seen any sign that you actually welcome solutions that are inclusive... You can yell all you like about censorship, Mark, but censors work in all sorts of ways. You've made it so no one who disagrees with your stance... can be heard.

Ark30inf: I have found that if you are not here to do battle then nobody will listen to you. Thats not what I am about. I tried to stick to just editing Arkansas articles to avoid stupid conflicts. It’s an area that nobody appeared interested in at all. Then I got jumped on for the way I categorized my articles and all of them reverted before I even was given an opportunity to discuss the way I categorized my articles. I stepped on someone's pet peeve and they didn't feel like waiting to hear what I had to say. It was somehow URGENT to revert all the Arkansas categorization for some reason. Screw it. Thats my LAST attempt at Wikipedia.

DannyWilde Fuelwagon Grace-Note Ark30inf