Moral bankruptcy?, The Butler in the library with the canlestick Options

[communicat]

Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.

[communicat]

Radek:
*Snort*

Ya know Radek, that stuff really messes with your brain after a while. (Which might not necessarily be a bad thing if you want to add to your dazzling collection of wikimedals).

Radek:
"Says the guy [communicat] responsible for the majority of the mindless prattle over the last few weeks."

Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".

This post has been edited by communicat:

[Milton Roe]

Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".

He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.

If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.

[communicat]

Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".

He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.

If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.

Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.

[radek]

Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".

He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.

If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.

Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.

When people like you take their masks off and start making racist (yes, yes, I know "Poles" are not a race) and sociopathic remarks like the above, while at the same time whining and self-pitying themselves over how they got banned from some internet forum "unfairly", I know I'm doing something right.

Telling a dumb Polack that "he should've died at Katyn" takes no balls. Try something braver. Go insult some other ethnic group along the same lines.

Scumbag.

[Larry Sanger]

On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.

As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.

I've already plonked him, myself.

I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!

[communicat]

On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.

As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.

I've already plonked him, myself.

I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!

Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe. Funny things is, whenever anyone tries to engage them in reasoned debate about NPOV in WP modern history articles, the topic goes off-topic and then off-off-topic and mudslinging replaces rationality. Why am I not surprised?

This post has been edited by communicat:

[thekohser]

WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool...

GBG, you may ban away. Why would someone want to participate in a cesspool, and why would the current swimmers welcome such obnoxious criticism of the water temperature?

[GlassBeadGame]

WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool...

GBG, you may ban away. Why would someone want to participate in a cesspool, and why would the current swimmers welcome such obnoxious criticism of the water temperature?

Like I get to decide or something.

There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed. If it is any consolation sometimes I feel the same about your posts, although you were never among those I felt needed to be banned.

[nableezy]

Like I get to decide or something.

There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.

What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.

I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.

[radek]

Like I get to decide or something.

There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.

What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.

I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.

I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.

[GlassBeadGame]

I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.

Right. Malice disappointed us so WR collapsed. That whole thing only exacerbated an already overwhelming flood of Wikipedians. In this case they wanted to read the "secret scoop" on what other Wikipedians said about them. Nobody but a complete idiot could be disappointed by that. But you see that as some kind of high point?

[radek]

I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.

Right. Malice disappointed us so WR collapsed. That whole thing only exacerbated an already overwhelming flood of Wikipedians. In this case they wanted to read the "secret scope" on what other Wikipedians said about them. Nobody but a complete idiot could be disappointed by that. But you see that as some kind of high point?

Not sure what your point is.

Let's have a retrospective on the history of WR and what it has accomplished over the years (quite a lot actually). And some reflections on why it's different now. But none of that is likely to have much to do with the things you appear to be upset about, which seems to be that nobody is paying enough attention to you unless you act like an asshole.

The thing is, both of these systems, Wikipedia and WR, are evolving. Wikipedia has gotten a lot better at avoiding outright scandalous shit like Essjay or Montmoreland - I doubt it we're gonna ever get juicy blow ups like that again. If things like that are still there they're much much more well covered up (and I don't mean conspiracy wise - just under layers of hard to understand bureaucratic procedures).

The main thing is that even without outright obvious nonsense like that, Wikipedia still sucks. I know it, you know it, the average person knows it. But there is no longer an Essjay to point to as a symbol of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. You'd have to point at person x, and admin y, and then person z, and admin w and then... it degenerates into particulars, personal grudges and petty tifts. And nobody pays attention since at a basic level person x, admin y, person z, admin w don't all matter all that much individually. So it seems silly.

The thing is that the institutional problems that produces the Essjays and all the rest are still there and they still haven't been solved. What the creature did is eliminate obvious manifestations of these problems, Dilbert-style. It didn't actually address the problems.

What this means is that if you want to criticize Wikipedia now, the days of easy targets are over (specifically, there's still lots of folks there who are easy targets for Wikipedia Review conversations, but if you ever hope to convince the outside world that ain't gonna cut it, since the outside world only pays attention to the issues once in awhile and only when it's scandal bone is tickled). And this means that what the criticism needs to focus on is the structural workings of Wikipedia. But this is much harder and tedious then just saying 'so and so is lying about his credentials' or 'so and so is sockpuppeting in order to advance a particular COI infested POV'.

The question now is WHY did that sort of thing happen in the first place and HOW is it still happening. And honestly, at this point, what that entails is a lot of data gathering, meticulous recording of small incidents, documentation, pouring through a lot of boring data just to find the stuff that stands out, recording of daily traffic or AN/I or something - basically archival work. I don't think WR over all is equipped for this kind of thing, though some people here are definitely trying to take it that way.

So to get back to the Malice point - I think when that started coming out a lot of people thought "another scandal which will make it easy for us to criticize Wikipedia again!" But that's not how it works and that's not what happened. Like it or not, it's still the same shitty beast but a bit more wily this time. And you're not gonna get by making fun of some off hand remarks that some Arbitrator made on a private list. Criticism, good criticism, is actually a tough, tedious and usually thankless task. Better get used to it or find another forum.