The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The TimidGuy case, aye, there's the rub
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sat 24th December 2011, 3:49pm
Post #21


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Sat 24th December 2011, 5:47am) *

There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors.
I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rhindle
post Sat 24th December 2011, 5:36pm
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834



What it comes down to is that Mr. Beback is a real piece of work. Hopefully, this time he'll get his comeuppance that has been more than overdue.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Sat 24th December 2011, 6:02pm
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 24th December 2011, 10:49am) *
I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.


Some people are motivated by a desire to destroy that with which they disagree. A kind of moral panic regarding minority ideologies can develop especially when one holds to a mainstream ideology that has similar features to the minority ideologies that one is opposing.

On the other hand, it is very easy for someone who is a true believer to mistake a person who is just dismissing favored arguments for one who is trying to rape, burn, pillage, and salt the earth. My advice is to try not to take things too seriously.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Sat 24th December 2011, 6:35pm
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE
... neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV ... Jclemens (talk) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)

I am in some difficulty here. What is the difference between these two ideas?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Sun 25th December 2011, 3:31am
Post #25


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 24th December 2011, 1:35pm) *

QUOTE
... neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV ... Jclemens (talk) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)

I am in some difficulty here. What is the difference between these two ideas?

I think it's 3 ideas. Adding another "nor" would improve both the grammar and the semantics.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Sun 25th December 2011, 4:26am
Post #26


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Sat 24th December 2011, 1:47pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 8:06am) *

The thing about Transcendental Meditation ™ is, why would any truly neutral editors be working in that topic? I imagine that the only editors interested in it would be followers of the philosophy, and those that hate it like a bad burrito.


In spite of claims to the contrary, there are academics who study religious movements who don't hate the subjects they study "like a bad burrito", and they do write scholarly articles and books about these subjects. More often than not, though, followers don't appreciate anyone who isn't a follower saying anything about their religion that doesn't toe their line. There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors.


It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sun 25th December 2011, 4:27am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Sun 25th December 2011, 5:27am
Post #27


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 11:26pm) *
It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.


You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Sun 25th December 2011, 7:32am
Post #28


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Sun 25th December 2011, 5:27am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 11:26pm) *
It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.


You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.


I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 25th December 2011, 4:22pm
Post #29


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 12:32am) *



I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.


That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable. This, of course, is the point where the WP:ACTIVISTS cry Censorship! or in the case of Will Beback, "whitewashing." As opposed to what one typically finds in articles about controversial topics or persons, which I suppose would be "blackwashing."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Thu 29th December 2011, 4:03pm
Post #30


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 12:32am) *
I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.


Denied implication, thy name is Cla68.

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 25th December 2011, 11:22am) *
That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable.


For every idea, you can find a nutjob who finds even the most mundane of content to be dubious, contentious, and disputable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
that one guy
post Fri 30th December 2011, 7:33pm
Post #31


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...imidGuy.27s_ban

Apparently Fladrif thinks it's ok to circumvent policy. Lovely
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
It's the blimp, Frank
post Mon 2nd January 2012, 7:54pm
Post #32


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 3:54pm
Member No.: 82



QUOTE(that one guy @ Fri 30th December 2011, 7:33pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...imidGuy.27s_ban

Apparently Fladrif thinks it's ok to circumvent policy. Lovely


Could he be a sock of Will Beback?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rhindle
post Mon 2nd January 2012, 9:32pm
Post #33


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834



QUOTE
Wikipedia has trouble dealing with tag teams of editors.... Will Beback talk 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Tue 3rd January 2012, 12:13am
Post #34


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rhindle @ Mon 2nd January 2012, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE
Wikipedia has trouble dealing with tag teams of editors.... Will Beback talk 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

laugh.gif rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Tue 3rd January 2012, 10:01pm
Post #35


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.

And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:29pm
Post #36


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 3rd January 2012, 10:01pm) *

I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.

And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?


One of WP's worst problems is dealing with established, agenda-driven editors. It's time-consuming, frustrating, tedious, and unrewarding. I know, however, this isn't the only reason people leave Wikipedia, as there are plenty of other problems as well.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:29pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:37pm
Post #37


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"? blink.gif

I guess we'll find out the backstory next time somebody leaks. sleep.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Wed 4th January 2012, 10:35pm
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:37pm) *

I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"? blink.gif

This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 4th January 2012, 10:42pm
Post #39


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 4th January 2012, 4:35pm) *
This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?
Jimbo is the God-King; by definition, he can do whatever he want, because he is the law.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 4th January 2012, 11:02pm
Post #40


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 4th January 2012, 2:42pm) *

Jimbo is the God-King; by definition, he can do whatever he want, because he is the law.

And usually, he doesn't know what to do.....so he dumps it on a minion.

(Remember his proposal for a "privy council"? Nothing was done, apparently.
The God-King is not godly enough.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 4th January 2012, 11:13pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 5 17, 8:44pm