![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
ColScott |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 428 Joined: Member No.: 2,793 ![]() |
Hey boyo -
why does SPA RTFA get to vote and do whatever he wants but SPA TOOMANYTOOLS does not? what are you hiding and why? |
![]() ![]() |
wikiwhistle |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,928 Joined: Member No.: 3,953 ![]() |
No- precisely- but it's a volunteer site. Like any other site, can only remove any libelous or inappropriate content when they are made aware of or see it. That is all that most sites, not just WP, have in their terms and conditions. Because no admins or mods can be monitoring their site every second- there'll always be some time delay before they find inappropriate content.
Do you thing WP should have some paid admins/mods, who have to systematically check articles? I think there would have to be a fair few to cover the millions of articles. Anyway, there would be a small time delay. Robert R- PM me the link to the person's article which has a paedo accusation if you really want it removed, and (assuming it isn't sourced (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ), I'll remove it. This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: |
Amarkov |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Inactive Posts: 646 Joined: From: Figure it out and get a cookie Member No.: 3,635 ![]() |
No- precisely- but it's a volunteer site. Like any other site, can only remove any libelous or inappropriate content when they are made aware of or see it. That is all that most sites, not just WP, have in their terms and conditions. Because no admins or mods can be monitoring their site every second- there'll always be some time delay before they find inappropriate content. Do you thing WP should have some paid admins/mods, who have to systematically check articles? I think there would have to be a fair few to cover the millions of articles. Anyway, there would be a small time delay. The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate". Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate. |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#4
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate". Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate. Well, ya, except that Wikipedia DOES have a disclaimer... it's linked from every page, right at the bottom, so presumably people do read it. In the disclaimer it says, in giant letters no less: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY That doesn't mean that things known to be wrong should be left, but still... you were warned. This post has been edited by Lar: |
Amarkov |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Inactive Posts: 646 Joined: From: Figure it out and get a cookie Member No.: 3,635 ![]() |
The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate". Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate. Well, ya, except that Wikipedia DOES have a disclaimer... it's linked from every page, right at the bottom, so presumably people do read it. In the disclaimer it says, in giant letters no less: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY That doesn't mean that things known to be wrong should be left, but still... you were warned. Brittanica has a disclaimer like that, too. In fact, I'd guess you'll find similar text in many encyclopedias. Regardless of what disclaimers may say, if something is billed as an encyclopedia, then it has a basic responsibility to be reasonably accurate. Especially when inaccuracy could be harmful. |
Lar |
![]()
Post
#6
|
"His blandness goes to 11!" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290 ![]() |
The thing is, most sites with user-contributed content are forums like this. They don't present random people's statements as encyclopedia articles. These sites say "this is a forum, on which users say things; they may or may not be accurate". Wikipedia bills its articles as an encyclopedia, and that should not be done without someone who has said "yes, this information is accurate". Nor without someone who is responsible when the information is innaccurate. Well, ya, except that Wikipedia DOES have a disclaimer... it's linked from every page, right at the bottom, so presumably people do read it. In the disclaimer it says, in giant letters no less: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY That doesn't mean that things known to be wrong should be left, but still... you were warned. Brittanica has a disclaimer like that, too. In fact, I'd guess you'll find similar text in many encyclopedias. Regardless of what disclaimers may say, if something is billed as an encyclopedia, then it has a basic responsibility to be reasonably accurate. Especially when inaccuracy could be harmful. I don't disagree with the idea that it ought to be as accurate as possible, as much of the time as possible. But, since anyone can edit it, even vandals, it can't be guaranteed to be. The project needs stable versions for that situation to be better, I suspect but even that can't prevent subtle errors that aren't recognised. But, I thought this thread was about deletion? I've spoken out on BLP-Lock about that, I made rather a radical proposal, in fact. We're mostly agreeing with each other, here, aren't we? |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
But, I thought this thread was about deletion? I've spoken out on BLP-Lock about that, I made rather a radical proposal, in fact. Presumably you're referring to this proposal...But you see the sort of mindset we've been up against, don't you? This is the entire reason Wikipedia is called a "cult" and a "hivemind." It attracts people who think and operate this way: QUOTE(User:Happy-melon @ March 22, 2008) If you are seriously considering placing a quarter of a million Wikipedia articles under indefinite full protection, then this proposal is even more misguided than I initially realised. "Radical" is not the word I would have used: I would have used "fundamental" - Wikipedia simply will not be the same place if 15% of its pages can't be edited... ...when, of course, you had suggested nothing of the sort. All you'd written was that the proposal "wasn't about" the handful of BLP articles currently under dispute, but the other 250,000 that could potentially be under dispute. Nowhere did you suggest that all 250,000 articles should be placed under full protection immediately, and yet this is the reaction you got.And the problem is compounded by Wikipedia's "civility" rules. You're not allowed to tell User:Happy-melon that he's a brainless moron with the attention span of a gnat, incapable of reading past the first three or four words of something someone else has written before immediately clicking WP's equivalent of a "Reply" button to tell everyone else how wrong they are and how right he is. This is the sort of person you should be banning from the site, never to be allowed back in ever again. This is the sort of person whose arrogance, narcissism, officiousness, and general lack of brain capacity consistently brings Wikipedia into disrepute among academics and journalists, and as we're seeing, an increasing percentage of everyone else. As long as people like that exist, they'll be attracted to a website that feeds their egotism and narcissism with each and every "edit," and because of that you'll always have this problem. And not only will it not go away, it will get worse, because these are the people who drive everyone else out. |
ColScott |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 428 Joined: Member No.: 2,793 ![]() |
But, I thought this thread was about deletion? I've spoken out on BLP-Lock about that, I made rather a radical proposal, in fact. Presumably you're referring to this proposal...But you see the sort of mindset we've been up against, don't you? This is the entire reason Wikipedia is called a "cult" and a "hivemind." It attracts people who think and operate this way: QUOTE(User:Happy-melon @ March 22, 2008) If you are seriously considering placing a quarter of a million Wikipedia articles under indefinite full protection, then this proposal is even more misguided than I initially realised. "Radical" is not the word I would have used: I would have used "fundamental" - Wikipedia simply will not be the same place if 15% of its pages can't be edited... ...when, of course, you had suggested nothing of the sort. All you'd written was that the proposal "wasn't about" the handful of BLP articles currently under dispute, but the other 250,000 that could potentially be under dispute. Nowhere did you suggest that all 250,000 articles should be placed under full protection immediately, and yet this is the reaction you got.And the problem is compounded by Wikipedia's "civility" rules. You're not allowed to tell User:Happy-melon that he's a brainless moron with the attention span of a gnat, incapable of reading past the first three or four words of something someone else has written before immediately clicking WP's equivalent of a "Reply" button to tell everyone else how wrong they are and how right he is. This is the sort of person you should be banning from the site, never to be allowed back in ever again. This is the sort of person whose arrogance, narcissism, officiousness, and general lack of brain capacity consistently brings Wikipedia into disrepute among academics and journalists, and as we're seeing, an increasing percentage of everyone else. As long as people like that exist, they'll be attracted to a website that feeds their egotism and narcissism with each and every "edit," and because of that you'll always have this problem. And not only will it not go away, it will get worse, because these are the people who drive everyone else out. Well I am gonna have a law firm speak to Joshua Zelinsky's dad on Monday. Maybe that will calm him down. People don't like the costs of litigation if they have any brains at all. I sincerely feel that although they remain in the cult, SirFozzie and Viridae have shown real humanity and I won't forget it when the revolution comes. Thank you both. The article will have to be kept on permanent lock because I'll make sure that there are two fans ready to delete it morning noon and night. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |