Welcome to new members, Please join Options Rating

[blissyu2]

In light of the recent SlimVirgin scandal, and Wikipedia Review's heavy role in exposing the truth, a lot more people have been looking at Wikipedia Review posts, and we have had a number of new people sign up. To those people: welcome.

Signing up is risky, as Wikipedia currently lists Wikipedia Review as an attack site, hence if you join here, then they are well within their rights to ban you for joining here, and/or to use anything that you say on here against you on Wikipedia (including de-sysopping you, as they did for Guanaco, Karmafist and Everyking). Also note that Karmafist was banned because of a post that he made here as well. However, you can get around this by quite simply not revealing your Wikipedia username. This is up to you of course, and if you plan to make volatile attacks against Wikipedia Review, then its probably a good idea to use your Wikipedia username (Snowspinner never got in to any trouble for posting here, because he never said anything nice about Wikipedia Review). Of course, we won't be too impressed if your only reason to join here is to attack us, and we reserve the right to ban you if it gets out of hand. However, if you're already banned from Wikipedia, then you're free! Free to say what your username was, protest your ban, and so forth. The freedom of being banned!

So then why sign up? Over 75% of people who read this forum do not sign up. But one important reason to sign up is that then you can add your story to all of this. In relation to the current story, if you publish it on Wikipedia then it'll be deleted, if not perma-deleted (e.g. Kylu's posts) and in some cases they have even banned people for daring to post it (e.g. Hexrei). But here you can post freely and not worry about it being wiped.

Wikipedia has given Wikipedia Review a Parental Advisory Sticker, and we hope that you take that in the same way that you would if it was on a music compilation. It means that we are so good that Wikipedia has to censor us!

[Brutus]

I'm happy to have signed up. I don't have much to contribute yet, but I have some interesting stories about my experiences on wikipedia which I hope to share, when I get the time.

Although I was warned by an well know administrator I would be permanently banned if I were to do so. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I must admit, some Admin's over there are great, but then there are some Admins and editors who think they own the internet.

It's those ones who bring the place down.

I used to think Wikipedia was the greatest thing online since sliced bread, - and it could be.

But lately I'm thinking it's an online encylopedia run by amateurs for amateurs.

I hope I don't sound too negative.

[Derktar]

I'm happy to have signed up. I don't have much to contribute yet, but I have some interesting stories about my experiences on wikipedia which I hope to share, when I get the time.

Although I was warned by an well know administrator I would be permanently banned if I were to do so. :rolleyes:

I must admit, some Admin's over there are great, but then there are some Admins and editors who think they own the internet.

It's those ones who bring the place down.

I used to think Wikipedia was the greatest thing online since sliced bread, - and it could be.

But lately I'm thinking it's an online encylopedia run by amateurs for amateurs.

I hope I don't sound too negative.

Et tu Brutus?

Sorry bad pun, but now that it's behind us...

Your experiences are not unique unfortunately, fear is a powerful motivator and we're glad you have at least seen the light.

Welcome to the Review and enjoy your stay!

[guy]

I hope I don't sound too negative.

No, you certainly don't. Welcome.

[Why-o-y]

Please help me. What the heck is going on on Wikipedia? I'm an emotional person, sure, but by-gone-it, I'm human and smart by the standards. I also have a few college degrees! Why do they have kids in charge of the community? Kids that have no life experience, nevermind edjumacation, and think they know-it=all! I know, most of us have been that age once. But, come-on, how can a 20-year-old make a good arbiter. Let alone and 13-year-old admin. Sure there are younin's (savants) that are "special" in that they are beyond their age. But, isn't that a minority?!!!?

Isn't it true that the average IQ is a double digit one? Doesn't that mean that most people are stupid?

My god, I think I've just experienced a segment in past history, like in the Nazi era. Someone please help me!

Please be gentle, because I'm emotional...but god-dammit. I can take it, I can say "Fuck" and "moron" without flinching. I can take constructive criticism from those I respect and know are much smarter than I. (Not too many, because my IQ is very high, but my EQ is low.)

I can take the vandals saying you're gay, and you're mother is fat, etc. But, I cannot take those who are in "power" ie. admins, clerks, whatever who are fucking insane.

Just a rant. Is there a rant forum? Will I be blocked for "cussing" here?

Your's truly,
Disillusioned emotional drama troll who cannot stand the hypocrisy and the Wiki-way!
Why-o-y

This post has been edited by Why-o-y:

[guy]

Welcome Why-o-y.

Wikipedia is run by youngsters because they are the people with the time and inclination to do the sort of things that help people become admins. And it becomes self-reinforcing; because that is the sort of person who runs things, similar people are welcomed and encouraged.

The average IQ is supposed to be 100 by definitio, though that was probably calibrated decades ago and maybe people have changed. Still, 50% of people must be below average.

[Why-o-y]

It's also for those with little time left. Having a terminal illness is no fun, I'd rather go out with a bang. Even if it's only on Wikipedia. My situation does not allow me to go outside. I've had a good life though.

This post has been edited by Why-o-y:

[GlassBeadGame]

Please help me. What the heck is going on on Wikipedia? I'm an emotional person, sure, but by-gone-it, I'm human and smart by the standards. I also have a few college degrees! Why do they have kids in charge of the community? Kids that have no life experience, nevermind edjumacation, and think they know-it=all! I know, most of us have been that age once. But, come-on, how can a 20-year-old make a good arbiter. Let alone and 13-year-old admin. Sure there are younin's (savants) that are "special" in that they are beyond their age. But, isn't that a minority?!!!?

Isn't it true that the average IQ is a double digit one? Doesn't that mean that most people are stupid?

My god, I think I've just experienced a segment in past history, like in the Nazi era. Someone please help me!

Please be gentle, because I'm emotional...but god-dammit. I can take it, I can say "Fuck" and "moron" without flinching. I can take constructive criticism from those I respect and know are much smarter than I. (Not too many, because my IQ is very high, but my EQ is low.)

I can take the vandals saying you're gay, and you're mother is fat, etc. But, I cannot take those who are in "power" ie. admins, clerks, whatever who are fucking insane.

Just a rant. Is there a rant forum? Will I be blocked for "cussing" here?

Your's truly,
Disillusioned emotional drama troll who cannot stand the hypocrisy and the Wiki-way!
Why-o-y

There is a distasteful indignity inflicted by 15 years olds with authority running roughshod over well educated adults. This has been noted here by others and is an active and fruitful aspect of criticism of Wikipedia. You certainly don't have to be a "troll" to chaff under those conditions. Welcome to WR Why-o-y.

[Jonny Cache]

It's also for those with little time left. Having a terminal illness is no fun, I'd rather go out with a bang. Even if it's only on Wikipedia. My situation does not allow me to go outside. I've had a good life though.

That's what it's all about, is it not? — sneaking a fragment of a semblance of what you wore out your life to learn past the dim hitcher on the road up ahead, the consolation prize, the vicarious immortality of leaving a legacy, the hope that it wouldn't be totally wasted if you could leave humanity one bit wiser for having been.

Jon Awbrey

[Somey]

Why do they have kids in charge of the community? Kids that have no life experience, nevermind edjumacation, and think they know-it=all! I know, most of us have been that age once. But, come-on, how can a 20-year-old make a good arbiter. Let alone and 13-year-old admin.

Would that it were only the "kids" showing poor judgement and promoting themselves without the benefit of qualifications... If it were just them, they might eventually be able to get the situation relatively under control.

I also suspect there are internet forums devoted to discussing the ideal way to go out with a bang, but I couldn't personally recommend one...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif)

[Moulton]

I also suspect there are internet forums devoted to discussing the ideal way to go out with a bang, but I couldn't personally recommend one...?

Writing a personal memoir on a blog is probably a good option.

[LessHorrid vanU]

It's also for those with little time left. Having a terminal illness is no fun, I'd rather go out with a bang. Even if it's only on Wikipedia. My situation does not allow me to go outside. I've had a good life though.

Hmmmmm... I think I may well have interacted with you over at WP; and I may just be one of the "insane admins" you refer to - although I don't fit the rest of the criteria. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Whatever, welcome... If you are who I am thinking of, I think that that stuff should stay over there - here I'm just another poster. If you ain't, then - here I'm just another poster.

Cheers.

[mbilitatu]

I tried to post to Wiki for about 10 months. I didn't contribute that much, because every time I did it was a fight. Someone with absolute ignorance about the topic but far more time and dedication to the fight made my efforts a phenomenal waste of time. It could take days to get a single sentence "approved", so any serious contribution seemed impossible.

What makes my situation more difficult is that I am a PhD research scientist who also has a decades long history of studying shamanism. I've worked around the world with some very powerful healers and have had jaw dropping, mind blowing experiences. And I have never had to let go of my scientific training during any shamanic work. In fact, my intellectual mindset has been a great ally in deepening the experience.

But ... as anyone who comes within a hundred miles of wiki knows ... any contribution to anything whose intellectual tradition is not grounded in the western scientific method is routinely pounded by the pseudo-skeptic mafia as fringe, pseudoscience, quackery and so on. And in the most frustrating of ironies, the pseudo-skeptic mafia uses false logic, bad science, political tactics and outright religious passion to do the pounding. In my opinion.

So ... I'm not totally certain why I'm here. Maybe to vent. Maybe to be heard. Maybe to see if there is a possibility to make a difference. Maybe to learn something. I was embroiled in one idiotic discussion and another request for deletion, and presumably those fights are still going on, but I don't have the desire to continue those fights and do not plan to bring them up here. I've researched the name involved and know that he's a famous, self-appointed guardian of the Wiki reality and he will undoubtedly outlast me. So be it.

Thank you for creating this venue. I have a couple ideas for discussions that might be interesting. We'll see.

[Anonymous editor]

funny to read the first post in light of what we now know and in light of what has happened recently.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[tarantino]

Welcome to the Review mbilitatu. Your experience at WP is not unusual.

[GlassBeadGame]

I tried to post to Wiki for about 10 months. I didn't contribute that much, because every time I did it was a fight. Someone with absolute ignorance about the topic but far more time and dedication to the fight made my efforts a phenomenal waste of time. It could take days to get a single sentence "approved", so any serious contribution seemed impossible.

What makes my situation more difficult is that I am a PhD research scientist who also has a decades long history of studying shamanism. I've worked around the world with some very powerful healers and have had jaw dropping, mind blowing experiences. And I have never had to let go of my scientific training during any shamanic work. In fact, my intellectual mindset has been a great ally in deepening the experience.

But ... as anyone who comes within a hundred miles of wiki knows ... any contribution to anything whose intellectual tradition is not grounded in the western scientific method is routinely pounded by the pseudo-skeptic mafia as fringe, pseudoscience, quackery and so on. And in the most frustrating of ironies, the pseudo-skeptic mafia uses false logic, bad science, political tactics and outright religious passion to do the pounding. In my opinion.

So ... I'm not totally certain why I'm here. Maybe to vent. Maybe to be heard. Maybe to see if there is a possibility to make a difference. Maybe to learn something. I was embroiled in one idiotic discussion and another request for deletion, and presumably those fights are still going on, but I don't have the desire to continue those fights and do not plan to bring them up here. I've researched the name involved and know that he's a famous, self-appointed guardian of the Wiki reality and he will undoubtedly outlast me. So be it.

Thank you for creating this venue. I have a couple ideas for discussions that might be interesting. We'll see.

Welcome mbilitatu. We have a resident shaman, who will be by soon to introduce himself. I think you will find significant support for your concerns about the use of harsh means to enforce the orthodoxy of entrenched and entitled editors.

[Peter Damian]

Signing up is risky, as Wikipedia currently lists Wikipedia Review as an attack site, hence if you join here, then they are well within their rights to ban you for joining here, and/or to use anything that you say on here against you on Wikipedia (including de-sysopping you, as they did for Guanaco, Karmafist and Everyking). Also note that Karmafist was banned because of a post that he made here as well.

Oi don't forget me mate personally banned by Jimbo for a mildly insulting comment against his minions made here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian

But ... as anyone who comes within a hundred miles of wiki knows ... any contribution to anything whose intellectual tradition is not grounded in the western scientific method is routinely pounded by the pseudo-skeptic mafia as fringe, pseudoscience, quackery and so on.

And rightly so in my view. In this house there are many mansions.

[AlioTheFool]

Hello everyone.

Herschel was kind enough to register my account for me.

[Fritz]

Just wanted to say hello somewhere without drawing attention to myself with a new topic.

I've been lurking around for a while, and am a little-known admin on Wikipedia, although I've been mentioned in a couple of threads here. Although I've not become known for my admin stuff, I inadvertantly seem to have started the Sarah Palin wheelwar, and caused a riot against bot-created articles. And those two items may have been embellished to make me seem more interesting.

I've lurked here for a while, reading a fair bit, and you've convinced me of some problems with Wikipedia beyond those I could identify myself. I'm not out to destroy Wikipedia, just like many of you, but I am interested in trying to explore how things could be changed. Alas, I lack the clout to inspire others, but hopefully every voice counts.

[Son of a Yeti]

The average IQ is supposed to be 100 by definitio, though that was probably calibrated decades ago and maybe people have changed. Still, 50% of people must be below average.

I'm surprised no one corrected yet this false statement. It would be true if it were the median, not the average.

As far as I know IQ 100 was supposed to be the average when it was invented. And it is not true that 50% people need to be below the average.

I'll give you an example.

Let's imagine a small community of Adam, Beth, Cecil, David and Sophia. Their IQs are:

Adam 70
Beth 75
Cecil 80
David 95
Sophia 180

The average is 100 (while the median is 80).

How many people are below the average? Four out of five or 80%.

It can be true about intelligence. But it is certainly true in many societies about wealth - when a small group of people has a lion share of property.

This post has been edited by Son of a Yeti: