Dr. Blofeld blows off Wikipedia Options

[sbrown]

On the surface, Wikipedia looks like a formal and legitimate compilation exercise, and someone like Blofield probably thinks they are just helping out.

Give him credit for being cleverer than that. Hes very experienced.

[Grep]

could it be that you also are being unreasonable?

Well, yes, but Friday is an admin, and hence right. Anyone who disagrees is either a fool, or wilfully blind, or disruptive. The fools should be ignored, the wilfully blind threatened until they choose to see better, and the disruptive instantly blocked on trumped-up charges.

[Alex]

Dr. Blofeld is an extraordinarily productive editor, quite the opposite of Friday, who is in fact "exactly like the kind of editor we _don't_ need". Blofeld spends his time writing or creating articles. Friday spends his time wallowing in drama, playing village cop beating up all the people he doesn't agree with. Who would I prefer editing Wikipedia? Blofeld by miles. He doesn't seem to be the one who keeps immature lists of people he doesn't like in his userspace. That is what I call unproductive.

[RMHED]

could it be that you also are being unreasonable?

Well, yes, but Friday is an admin, and hence right. Anyone who disagrees is either a fool, or wilfully blind, or disruptive. The fools should be ignored, the wilfully blind threatened until they choose to see better, and the disruptive instantly blocked on trumped-up charges.

Such cynicism, I'm sure Friday is a fine fellow.

As for poor old Blofeld, he always struck me as someone of rather a brittle persona. Anyone who spends that much time on Wikipedia probably requires help from a mental health professional.

[EricBarbour]

Anyone who spends that much time on Wikipedia probably requires help from a mental health professional.

Make that "Anyone who spends more than 2 hours a week on Wikipedia" and I'll go with it.

[Alex]

Anyone who spends that much time on Wikipedia probably requires help from a mental health professional.

Make that "Anyone who spends more than 2 hours a week on Wikipedia" and I'll go with it.

Right... and the people that hang out on here all day long are any better? Better to be productive on Wikipedia, and getting stuck in dealing with its problems, than whining about this that and the other here all the time.

[RMHED]

Anyone who spends that much time on Wikipedia probably requires help from a mental health professional.

Make that "Anyone who spends more than 2 hours a week on Wikipedia" and I'll go with it.

Better to be productive on Wikipedia, and getting stuck in dealing with its problems, than whining about this that and the other here all the time.

Alex if you believe Wikipedia's problems are likely to be solved you are either delusional or an incredible deluded optimist.

[Alex]

Anyone who spends that much time on Wikipedia probably requires help from a mental health professional.

Make that "Anyone who spends more than 2 hours a week on Wikipedia" and I'll go with it.

Better to be productive on Wikipedia, and getting stuck in dealing with its problems, than whining about this that and the other here all the time.

Alex if you believe Wikipedia's problems are likely to be solved you are either delusional or an incredible deluded optimist.

Never said they could be solved. There are many who spend their time dealing with things like BLP issues, plagiarism, copyvios etc, and we should be thankful that they are spending their time doing that, not making them out to be some sort of psycho. Nothing will be solved on Wikipedia as long as the ridiculous "anyone can edit" meme rules supreme. It is precisely because of anyone can edit that causes Wikipedia's problems. If certain people couldn't edit, Wikipedia would be very different indeed.

[RMHED]

If certain people couldn't edit, Wikipedia would be very different indeed.

Name the curs Alex, fear ye not reprisals, the shield of righteousness will protect thee.

[Alex]

If certain people couldn't edit, Wikipedia would be very different indeed.

Name the curs Alex, fear ye not reprisals, the shield of righteousness will protect thee.

I refer to people who vandalise and add crap to articles. Most articles are such poor quality, and this is down to anyone being able to edit them. They ruin them.

[RMHED]

If certain people couldn't edit, Wikipedia would be very different indeed.

Name the curs Alex, fear ye not reprisals, the shield of righteousness will protect thee.

I refer to people who vandalise and add crap to articles

Guilty, guilty, guilty, cry I. the balance of my mind was disturbed though, mitigating circumstances your honour?

Most articles are such poor quality, and this is down to anyone being able to edit them. They ruin them.

Were they not created this way? You would restrict those who could edit Alex?

Heresy! say I. The Godhead would not approve, repent while ye may Alex.

[A Horse With No Name]

Right... and the people that hang out on here all day long are any better? Better to be productive on Wikipedia, and getting stuck in dealing with its problems, than whining about this that and the other here all the time.

Actually, the conversation over here is a lot more entertaining. Besides, it is more fun to watch a car wreck than to be in one!

[Juliancolton]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

[Malleus]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

[Milton Roe]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

Stubs, like red-links, are the buds from which Wikipedia grows. They are no more vandal-magnets than the rest of the work.

[Alex]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

Stubs, like red-links, are the buds from which Wikipedia grows. They are no more vandal-magnets than the rest of the work.

Perhaps, but no one is going to be watching them are they? Unlike a more high profile article.

[Malleus]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

Stubs, like red-links, are the buds from which Wikipedia grows. They are no more vandal-magnets than the rest of the work.

The problem with Blofeld's stubs was that they were generated mechanically, and therefore unwatched. Any unwatched article is a magnet for vandals, and he created tens of thousands of them.

[Milton Roe]

Blofeld was a productive editor who spent month after month countering systematic bias. I'm honestly not sure why we're complaining about him.

I'm not entirely sure that the best way to counter "systematic bias" is to create loads of pretty useless and unwatched stubs; seems to me more like a vandal-magnet. Convince me.

Stubs, like red-links, are the buds from which Wikipedia grows. They are no more vandal-magnets than the rest of the work.

Perhaps, but no one is going to be watching them are they? Unlike a more high profile article.

But at the same time vandals, who usually turn out to be K-12ers rebelling against classwork, aren't going to be looking at stubs either, but instead high-profile articles. That's what MAKES them high-profile articles, don't you know. So the question is not number of absolute page-views, the the ratio of page views by contributors/vandals. Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

[Malleus]

Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that has now been made repeatedly; Blofeld's stubs were created by a bot. Bots don't watch articles.

[Milton Roe]

Since the stub-creator at least will be watching, plus a few other generic cat and huggle patrolers, I think the balance is not against stubs. It may be in favor.

You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that has now been made repeatedly; Blofeld's stubs were created by a bot. Bots don't watch articles.

They don't? Then that user:Clubot dude must take more Ritalin than SlimVirgin.