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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Moral bankruptcy?, The Butler in the library with the canlestick
Larry Sanger
post Mon 17th October 2011, 7:43pm
Post #41


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun 2nd May 2010, 9:22pm
Member No.: 19,790

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.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!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 17th October 2011, 7:58pm
Post #42


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm) *

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that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.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: Mon 17th October 2011, 8:21pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Mon 17th October 2011, 8:05pm
Post #43


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm) *

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.


Larry Sanger is a "rabid Wikipedian!?!" blink.gif wtf.gif

What are earth have you been drinking?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Mon 17th October 2011, 8:16pm
Post #44


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 2:05pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm) *

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.


Larry Sanger is a "rabid Wikipedian!?!" blink.gif wtf.gif

What are earth have you been drinking?

He's a rabbit Wikipedian. Furries rule that site.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Mon 17th October 2011, 8:16pm
Post #45


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 10:05pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm) *

QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm) *

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.


Larry Sanger is a "rabid Wikipedian!?!" blink.gif wtf.gif

What are earth have you been drinking?

Wasn't he the same guy who earlier bragged here about all the NPOV material he contributes to WP?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 17th October 2011, 8:57pm
Post #46


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 1:05pm) *

Larry Sanger is a "rabid Wikipedian!?!" blink.gif wtf.gif

What are earth have you [Communicat] been drinking?

Plus, Radek has retired. And I only improve articles on obscure topics in the sciences. This stuff is mirrored at many sites, and I believe it is essentially independent of Wikipedia.

I do it altruistically. wink.gif Just to make Rand turn over in her grave. happy.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Mon 17th October 2011, 10:19pm
Post #47


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

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



The one thing I find disagreeable about communicat is that he uses that cute little cat for an avatar. An avowed ailurophile as myself simply cannot abide by having cute cat images associated with such rampant idiocy.

That is my only complaint on this issue. Carry on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Tue 18th October 2011, 12:02am
Post #48


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 18th October 2011, 12:19am) *

The one thing I find disagreeable about communicat is that he uses that cute little cat for an avatar. An avowed ailurophile as myself simply cannot abide by having cute cat images associated with such rampant idiocy.

That is my only complaint on this issue. Carry on.

The one thing I find disagreeable about Kelly Martin is that she doesn't have an avatar at all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 18th October 2011, 12:20am
Post #49


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm) *

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 18th October 2011, 12:33am
Post #50


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:20pm) *

QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nableezy
post Tue 18th October 2011, 1:53am
Post #51


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed 27th May 2009, 2:03am
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Tue 18th October 2011, 1:57am
Post #52


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 8:53pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Tue 18th October 2011, 2:45am
Post #53


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:57pm) *

QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 8:53pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm) *
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.


I have trouble thinking of anything to post anymore. My primary interest is the sociology and the political make-up of Wikipedia. How do you create a good collaborative culture with a fair, just political system that can mediate disputes yet have the wisdom to remove problem editors without creating a chilling effect and/or sparking a riot? What did Wikipedia do wrong in those regards? If we could go back to the years of Wikipedia development, what could we do to stop the problems we see now on WP from existing? How might crowdsourcing and expert input work side-by-side, if at all? As an aspiring librarian, I worry more about how readers will take resources like Wikipedia as the "be-all-end-all" of information and neglect the virtues of true information literacy. An education professor in my local paper recently lamented the emergence of a rote memorization education system that creates a culture that "just looks for information on Wikipedia" and eschews critical thinking skills.

Jon Awbrey used to delve into those kinds of questions and issues, but few of us could latch on to them and carry on a good, informative discussion. Peter is asking those kinds of questions now, but it has spun off into weird conversations about Milton being the son of Selina and Jayjg among other things. Oy vey. unhappy.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 18th October 2011, 2:59am
Post #54


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm) *



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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Tue 18th October 2011, 4:22am
Post #55


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:59pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm) *



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 18th October 2011, 12:57pm
Post #56


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 10:22pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:59pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm) *



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.


Nice spin running completely contrary to the previous statement you are defending. Very Wikipedian. This coming from of those "content creators" who spent the past five years collecting barnstars and shit. Please just go back home.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 18th October 2011, 2:34pm
Post #57


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 8:33pm) *

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.


Thanks a lot.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
communicat
post Tue 18th October 2011, 5:01pm
Post #58


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun 31st Jul 2011, 11:31am
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
The Joy:
"How might crowdsourcing and expert input work side-by-side, if at all?"

Crowd sourcing produces excessive noise. Expert input equals transmission of information, i.e. communication. Noise prevents communication. QED: The two are incompatible. Which results either in miscommunication or in no communication at all. That's probably the cause of most if not all disruptive conflict not only at WP/WR but in the notion of "participatory democracy" as a whole. The alternative is autocracy; and that ain't much of an alternative either. There are no easy solutions. That's life. As Alexander Pope put it: "Whatever is, is right". Get over it.

Another problem with noisy crowd-sourcing is that everybody is absolutely certain he/she is right; absolutely certain everything is either black or white. No shades of gray. Nobody knows how to live with uncertainty, that is to say, how to live with NPOV.

This post has been edited by communicat: Tue 18th October 2011, 8:15pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 18th October 2011, 6:25pm
Post #59


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:53pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm) *
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.


Nice to know that I had influence on somebody on this site. I still believe that any meaningful critique of WP needs to focus on external standards and perspectives. To look at WPs destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries. To confront it's insensitivity to the needs of significant communities outside its own narrow demographics such as Muslims and parents. To expose the risk it presents to children. To oppose the erosion of fundamentally fair notions like people should be paid for work and charities should help people rather than merely provide yet another forum people to say whatever they want. To warn against the corrosive effect of extreme libertarianism and Free Kulture. None of this can be discussed on Wikipedia. Of late none of it can be discussed to any profit on WR.

Rather than change or truncate the scope of the critique to fit the new WR it makes more sense to take the heart of the critique elsewhere. It won't be limited to just WP. It it won't be brought by "glassbeadgame." It doesn't need to take a bunch of Wikipedians along.

So mostly my interest here is with the damage Wikipedians have done to this and similar sites including confronting the narrowness of their demographics politics and culture. Also to oppose any move to bring in any Wikipedian moderators to facilitate the theft of the site and encourage shutting down the site rather than becoming a Wikipedian noticeboard.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Tue 18th October 2011, 7:02pm
Post #60


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 18th October 2011, 6:25pm) *


Nice to know that I had influence on somebody on this site. I still believe that any meaningful critique of WP needs to focus on external standards and perspectives. To look at WPs destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries. To confront it's insensitivity to the needs of significant communities outside its own narrow demographics such as Muslims and parents. To expose the risk it presents to children. To oppose the erosion of fundamentally fair notions like people should be paid for work and charities should help people rather than merely provide yet another forum people to say whatever they want. To warn against the corrosive effect of extreme libertarianism and Free Kulture. None of this can be discussed on Wikipedia. Of late none of it can be discussed to any profit on WR.




Could you please elaborate on some of your points, for example, how WP makes a destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries?
My question not necessarily means I disagree with you. I simply would like to understand what you mean.
From my own perspective I could compare Wikipedia to Communism: Both ideas were great, but implementations proved that nothing good came out of either.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 18th October 2011, 7:19pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 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: 28th 5 17, 4:46am