The Chipster goes on strike, -- cabal in disarray? Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk),

Well... it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.

[Kato]

"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk),

Well... it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.

Well that's one way of looking at it.

That does rather remind me of the theories about the Bilderberg Group, which was set up by the shadowy manipulative figure otherwise known as....

Denis Healey.

"You Silly Billy"

[Jonny Cache]

"Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk)

Well … it's not quite so simple. The Fabian Society was an ingenious ploy by a faction of the aristocracy that believed that in order to maintain the sanctity of the class system, a few more crumbs would needs be thrown to the lower classes.

Gee, that sounds oddly φamiliar …

Yes, here it is — The Kinder, Gentler Aristocraps —

WikiΦabian Society

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 22nd October 2007, 2:54pm

[jorge]

Denis Healey.

"You Silly Billy"

Now there's an impressive eyebrow.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Flonight, back at the arbcom ranch, is calling upon the arbcom to give the Chipster and his sidekick "more support."

I moved a few more Conservapedia-oriented posts to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

[Kyaa the Catlord]

Oh Chip's fabulous!

My favorite article of his is Dominionism, where he's not only editting the article, he's pretty much the sole source.

I'd miss him if he were gone, he's my favorite whacko conspiracy theorist.

[Moulton]

And Moulton, I knew a girl named Grace once. She was hot.

Amazing.

[nobs]

Oh Chip's fabulous!

My favorite article of his is Dominionism, where he's not only editting the article, he's pretty much the sole source.

I'd miss him if he were gone, he's my favorite whacko conspiracy theorist.

First he had to rewrite the definition of Dominionism from "a trend in Protestant Evangelicalsim" cause Paul Weyrich is Catholic, to "a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians...aiming at ...a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law." Well, duh. The bible says, "ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Who's he trying to convince of what? or is this just another example of Wikipedia "scholarship"?

I'm not sure. The whole "omg dominionism" crowd is such a raving mob of lunatics it is hard to figure out what exactly their whole argument is. I think it boils down to politically motivated christians are the devil.

Or something.

They got rid of the [[Dr. Dobson]] is a klansman section, and Berlet's name was taken off the Template as Wikipedia's premier expert, but Dobson is still targeted on the Template.

So this is a major change, similiar to the Brandt episode; even when an alleged "notable expert" signs his name to a guilt-by-association smear Wikipedia is now hiding thier identity.

[Moulton]

"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans to some degree."

It's not clear to me that those at the helm really appreciate just how far off course Wikipedia is drifting, under the influence of dual agents who have secondary personal agendas other than accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting informative articles worthy of a respectable public encyclopedia.

[nobs]

"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans to some degree."

It's not clear to me that those at the helm really appreciate just how far off course Wikipedia is drifting, under the influence of dual agents who have secondary personal agendas other than accuracy, excellence, and ethics in crafting informative articles worthy of a respectable public encyclopedia.

Is it

The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, and The Sum of Human Knowledge

or more like the proposal here, on page 8

...a scheme combining creation of a positive and proactive propaganda distribution programme and amelioration through direct action...

[Moulton]

It's more like a misanthropic social networking site that has devolved into petty political wrangling dominated by a clownish and mean-spirited dominance hierarchy.

[nobs]

It's more like a misanthropic social networking site that has devolved into petty political wrangling dominated by a clownish and mean-spirited dominance hierarchy.

I'd agree with that but let's look at these two quotes:

"Wikipedia has apparently attracted some...secret personal agendas... that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation...appear to support"

... a positive and proactive propaganda distribution programme and amelioration through direct action...

[Moulton]

If Wikipedia is the 8th ranked site on the Web, a dispassionate and objective analysis will sooner or later emerge, notwithstanding Wikipedia's own public relations efforts to the contrary.

When I began editing on Wikipedia, I had no opinion one way or the other regarding the integrity of the site. I might have shrugged off my negative experience as a one-off misadventure, were it not for the comparable stories emanating from the media, the blogosphere, and WR (none of which I was aware of until after my own shocking and dispiriting collision with the uncongenial and misanthropic WP Cabal).

[nobs]

If Wikipedia is the 8th ranked site on the Web, a dispassionate and objective analysis will sooner or later emerge, notwithstanding Wikipedia's own public relations efforts to the contrary.

When I began editing on Wikipedia, I had no opinion one way or the other regarding the integrity of the site. I might have shrugged off my negative experience as a one-off misadventure, were it not for the comparable stories emanating from the media, the blogosphere, and WR (none of which I was aware of until after my own shocking and dispiriting collision with the uncongenial and misanthropic WP Cabal).

I'll have to read about your case. Gimme a link somewhere you beleive is a good starting point.

Ultimately WP's credibility crisis was a choice they made -- it is not as if they were not warned thier behavior, attitudes, written policies, and Arbitration Rulings would not lead to this result.

[Moulton]

I'll have to read about your case. Gimme a link somewhere you believe is a good starting point.

This is where I started writing up my experiences...

Wikipedia makes for a nightmare in online journalism ethics

If you want to delve deeper, I can give you links to the RfC and to the now-blanked and buried material on my userpage and elsewhere on Wikipedia.