Elonka&JayJG v ChrisO Options

[Hipocrite]

Reference (static as of right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ersian_problems

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, Elonka has redirected her endless rage against people who actually went to college for more than just one year before failing out, and have some level of expertise in what they talk about at ChrisO, who is a phD historian editing in his field of expertise. Because of lunatic Iranian Nationalists and Ancient Hebrew apologists (I shit you not - this is about things done in 600 BC) being opposed to an accurate picture of history, ChrisO's historically accurate edits are opposed by both Iranian ex-pats and "Israel can do no wrong" agenda editors, in addition to Elonka's continuing crusade against anyone who knows something she doesn't.

Worth reading.



Oh, and hi.




More offensive, of course, is JayJG's statement that ChrisO protecting a page in his userspace is "The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...partheid_editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...partheid_editor


This post has been edited by Hipocrite: Fri 7th November 2008, 3:45am

[Derktar]

Reference (static as of right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ersian_problems

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, Elonka has redirected her endless rage against people who actually went to college for more than just one year before failing out, and have some level of expertise in what they talk about at ChrisO, who is a phD historian editing in his field of expertise. Because of lunatic Iranian Nationalists and Ancient Hebrew apologists (I shit you not - this is about things done in 600 BC) being opposed to an accurate picture of history, ChrisO's historically accurate edits are opposed by both Iranian ex-pats and "Israel can do no wrong" agenda editors, in addition to Elonka's continuing crusade against anyone who knows something she doesn't.

Worth reading.



Oh, and hi.




More offensive, of course, is JayJG's statement that ChrisO protecting a page in his userspace is "The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...partheid_editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...partheid_editor

Welcome to WR Hipocrite

[Alison]

Oh, and hi.

Well, hi there Welcome to Wikipedia Review.

I .. uh .. think we've met before. If I'm not mistaken, it related to my posting on WR

[SirFozzie]

Wow. Deja vu all over again. Welcome hipocrite

[Cla68]

Oh, and hi.

I thought you didn't like WR. Nevertheless, of course, welcome to the forum.

Oh, and it appears that everyone in that thread is appropriately ignoring Jayjg's sniping. I'm not sure if it's ok for an admin to protect a subpage in their userspace or not, but it doesn't really bother me too much.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Fri 7th November 2008, 7:00am

[Sarcasticidealist]

I thought you didn't like WR.

Just a guess, but I think that might be what his WR username refers to.

[Alex]

I thought you didn't like WR.

Just a guess, but I think that might be what his WR username refers to.

I think that was also his former account name. But yeah, it sure is hypocritical...

[Hipocrite]

The response to lunatics here has improved dramatically whilst the response to lunatics there has devolved at nearly an equivalent rate. Both this site and that site appear to be at about equal value to society at current.

[Son of a Yeti]

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, [...]

We could do a poll: How long before the kooks will drive away all the regular editors with scholarly background?

My opinion is that if nothing changes it will be less than a year.

[Ottava]

Reference (static as of right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ersian_problems

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, Elonka has redirected her endless rage against people who actually went to college for more than just one year before failing out, and have some level of expertise in what they talk about at ChrisO, who is a phD historian editing in his field of expertise. Because of lunatic Iranian Nationalists and Ancient Hebrew apologists (I shit you not - this is about things done in 600 BC) being opposed to an accurate picture of history, ChrisO's historically accurate edits are opposed by both Iranian ex-pats and "Israel can do no wrong" agenda editors, in addition to Elonka's continuing crusade against anyone who knows something she doesn't.

Your assessment of the situation clearly does not match the actual situation.

And a PhD does not mean that you aren't biased, credible, or the rest. It just means that some school decided to award you a degree based on whatever standard they put forth, or lack thereof.

And Wikipedia is not about "truth", it is about references and consensus, and if consensus does not agree that his version is truth, then he cannot send people to whine and bitch for him on off Wiki message boards until he gets his way.

[Hipocrite]

Reference (static as of right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ersian_problems

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, Elonka has redirected her endless rage against people who actually went to college for more than just one year before failing out, and have some level of expertise in what they talk about at ChrisO, who is a phD historian editing in his field of expertise. Because of lunatic Iranian Nationalists and Ancient Hebrew apologists (I shit you not - this is about things done in 600 BC) being opposed to an accurate picture of history, ChrisO's historically accurate edits are opposed by both Iranian ex-pats and "Israel can do no wrong" agenda editors, in addition to Elonka's continuing crusade against anyone who knows something she doesn't.

Your assessment of the situation clearly does not match the actual situation.

And a PhD does not mean that you aren't biased, credible, or the rest. It just means that some school decided to award you a degree based on whatever standard they put forth, or lack thereof.

And Wikipedia is not about "truth", it is about references and consensus, and if consensus does not agree that his version is truth, then he cannot send people to whine and bitch for him on off Wiki message boards until he gets his way.

So your statement is that ChrisO is not using sources and that JayJG and the Iranian Nationalists are? You've got to be smoking some crazy weed. Why don't you start with [[Siege of Doriskos]].

[Ottava]

So your statement is that ChrisO is not using sources and that JayJG and the Iranian Nationalists are? You've got to be smoking some crazy weed. Why don't you start with [[Siege of Doriskos]].

No, not even close.

My statement was that ChrisO was violating the rules of consensus by acting as if he had the truth and that his POV is the only one that should be considered, ignores any possible working with others, and seeks to posit his "degree" as some how giving him the right to claim whatever he wants.

In the critical world, you have to prove yourself, go through review, and the rest. Instead, he wants to ignore any of that and just push his own interpretation. That is not what Wikipedia is. That is not what Academia is.

[Hipocrite]

So your statement is that ChrisO is not using sources and that JayJG and the Iranian Nationalists are? You've got to be smoking some crazy weed. Why don't you start with [[Siege of Doriskos]].

No, not even close.

My statement was that ChrisO was violating the rules of consensus by acting as if he had the truth and that his POV is the only one that should be considered, ignores any possible working with others, and seeks to posit his "degree" as some how giving him the right to claim whatever he wants.

In the critical world, you have to prove yourself, go through review, and the rest. Instead, he wants to ignore any of that and just push his own interpretation. That is not what Wikipedia is. That is not what Academia is.

That's not what he's doing. He is engaging of a review of a series hoaxes perpetuated by individuals who do not cite their sources and make things up of whole cloth. I see no evidence that he has relied on his degree to claim whatever he wants - you appear to have confused him and his psycotic adversaries. In a perfect world, you would cite evidence that what you posit is true, but I am certain you will not - instead it appears that you, like Elonka, are opposed to all experts, and are hoping without any real evidence gathering that this expert has fallen into the standard expert-trap of assuming that the idiots he is interacting with on Wikipedia are minimally versed in the subject matter they profess to write an encyclopedia on. Of course, he's not - but if you throw enough shit on the wall, eventually eveything smells.

[Somey]

In the critical world, you have to prove yourself, go through review, and the rest. Instead, he wants to ignore any of that and just push his own interpretation. That is not what Wikipedia is. That is not what Academia is.

I'd say "crazy" doesn't even begin to describe the aforementioned weed...

Not only does Wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with "Academia" whatsoever, there's nothing "critical" about it, either. But even if you accept that ChrisO is biased towards a particular "interpretation," which I don't, it isn't simply a matter of sources and references. It's been shown time and time again that sources and their usage can be manipulated to serve a particular agenda, and not only in terms of promoting them or questioning their "reliability," but also by generating them directly.

Face it, Ottava - there is simply no way that Wikipedia, or any other publicly-editable website, can produce a "neutral," properly-sourced version of a general-info piece on a highly-controversial topic. For that you have to bring in neutral people to begin with, preferably with some degree of expertise both in the subject and in writing in an unbiased way, and then keep everyone else out. But they're obviously not going to be doing that any time soon, are they?

[Ottava]

That's not what he's doing. He is engaging of a review of a series hoaxes perpetuated by individuals who do not cite their sources and make things up of whole cloth. I see no evidence that he has relied on his degree to claim whatever he wants - you appear to have confused him and his psycotic adversaries. In a perfect world, you would cite evidence that what you posit is true, but I am certain you will not - instead it appears that you, like Elonka, are opposed to all experts, and are hoping without any real evidence gathering that this expert has fallen into the standard expert-trap of assuming that the idiots he is interacting with on Wikipedia are minimally versed in the subject matter they profess to write an encyclopedia on. Of course, he's not - but if you throw enough shit on the wall, eventually eveything smells.

By "engaging in a review" you mean using his subspace in order to push his POV instead of taking it to an appropriate forum to actually see what the community says about it?

That is definitely not consensus building.

Not only does Wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with "Academia" whatsoever, there's nothing "critical" about it, either.

Somey, I was refering to ChrisO's actions as a holder of a PhD and that at no time would being part of academia ever legitimize such an approach, therefore, the PhD cannot be used to legitimize said course of action.

Face it, Ottava - there is simply no way that Wikipedia, or any other publicly-editable website, can produce a "neutral," properly-sourced version of a general-info piece on a highly-controversial topic.

I never said they could.

Instead, I said the opposite - consensus much be reached. Consensus does not mean neutral (quite the opposite). Instead, this user wants to posit his "neutral" and "truthful" version and ignore the consensus of other users.

[gomi]

We could do a poll: How long before the kooks will drive away all the regular editors with scholarly background?

I vote for 2006. Definitely 2006.

[Hipocrite]

Instead, I said the opposite - consensus much be reached. Consensus does not mean neutral (quite the opposite). Instead, this user wants to posit his "neutral" and "truthful" version and ignore the consensus of other users.

This, by the way, is why I quit Wikipedia. Consensus to be wrong was, in the bad old days, ignored. Now it's not, because "community" trumps "encyclopedia."

[Somey]

That is definitely not consensus building.

What does "consensus building" have to do with an informal review of biased sources? If he wants to post evidence and links in a user subpage, let him. It's just a courtesy to let people see what he's doing, looks like to me. But sure enough, heavily-biased people like you are bashing him for it!

Somey, I was refering to ChrisO's actions as a holder of a PhD and that at no time would being part of academia ever legitimize such an approach, therefore, the PhD cannot be used to legitimize said course of action.

The course of action doesn't require "legitimacy," only the sources themselves, and the article itself. Mr. Hipocrite is simply making the point that ChrisO (T-C-L-K-R-D) has expertise in the subject matter - like you yourself suggest, the Ph.D. is merely a symbol. Society generally recognizes that particular symbol as having value, though, and so most people probably would consider such a person to be more qualified than most to judge the veracity of secondary sources, with or without input or interference from other Wikipediots.

Instead, I said the opposite - consensus much be reached. Consensus does not mean neutral (quite the opposite). Instead, this user wants to posit his "neutral" and "truthful" version and ignore the consensus of other users.

Well then, perhaps you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Wikipedia, then? That at least two of the "five pillars" actually contradict each other?

So why even participate at all?

[Piperdown]

That is definitely not consensus building.

What does "consensus building" have to do with an informal review of biased sources? If he wants to post evidence and links in a user subpage, let him. It's just a courtesy to let people see what he's doing, looks like to me. But sure enough, heavily-biased people like you are bashing him for it!

Somey, I was refering to ChrisO's actions as a holder of a PhD and that at no time would being part of academia ever legitimize such an approach, therefore, the PhD cannot be used to legitimize said course of action.

The course of action doesn't require "legitimacy," only the sources themselves, and the article itself. Mr. Hipocrite is simply making the point that ChrisO (T-C-L-K-R-D) has expertise in the subject matter - like you yourself suggest, the Ph.D. is merely a symbol. Society generally recognizes that particular symbol as having value, though, and so most people probably would consider such a person to be more qualified than most to judge the veracity of secondary sources, with or without input or interference from other Wikipediots.

Instead, I said the opposite - consensus much be reached. Consensus does not mean neutral (quite the opposite). Instead, this user wants to posit his "neutral" and "truthful" version and ignore the consensus of other users.

Well then, perhaps you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Wikipedia, then? That at least two of the "five pillars" actually contradict each other?

So why even participate at all?

indeed. just as wikipeds are aware that NYBrad is one of them high powered New Yawk Lawyers. So his word is gold, although he's unfortunately diluted its value with too much supply and too high a percentage of fool's gold.

essjay's "PhD" got him all the way to underneath Jimbo's desk.

Gary Weiss is actually considered by his WP Friends to be an expert on short selling. LOL. He's not even an expert on how to be a journalist, even after 25 years of (not) trying.

Bauder's defrocked lawyer status led him to the toppermost of the Arbymost. That went well. About as well as his Colorado bar hearing.

Wikipedia is more akin Mao's cultural revoultion where a bunch of suddenly empowered unstable, unemployed, disgraced, religious/political fanatics get to send off all those Intellectual Elite "uncooperative" do-gooders off to the Sockfarm Reducation Camps.

[Ottava]

What does "consensus building" have to do with an informal review of biased sources?

Do you seriously have to ask?

One person does not make truth.

If he is correct, others will see it and agree.

If not, they wont.

Obviously, they didn't agree.