|
|
|
Caulde: Yet another admin retirement |
|
|
Willking1979 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
From: Kentucky
Member No.: 9,736
|
Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has retired. Here is the Spanish-language message:
"DirÃa adiós por ahora - podrÃa volver en el futuro. Con la mayor consideración, Caulde."
Here is an English translation:
"I'm going to say goodbye for now, but may return in the future. With the most consideration, Caulde."
Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired. Interestingly, this entry appears in the block log:
11:39, March 8, 2009 Caulde (talk | contribs) blocked Caulde (talk | contribs) (cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (To prevent myself from doing something I shouldn't do.)
Your thoughts???
|
|
|
|
Wikileaker |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 62
Joined:
Member No.: 4,864
|
Onnaghar/Rudget/Caulde/God knows what else is only twelve or thirteen, IIRC. (Edit: Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)) This post has been edited by Wikileaker:
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Willking1979 @ Sun 8th March 2009, 1:16pm) Another day, another admin retirement: Caulde has retired. Here is the Spanish-language message:
"DirÃa adiós por ahora - podrÃa volver en el futuro. Con la mayor consideración, Caulde."
Here is an English translation:
"I'm going to say goodbye for now, but may return in the future. With the most consideration, Caulde."
Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired. Interestingly, this entry appears in the block log:
11:39, March 8, 2009 Caulde (talk | contribs) blocked Caulde (talk | contribs) (cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (To prevent myself from doing something I shouldn't do.)
Your thoughts???
No great loss.
|
|
|
|
Bottled_Spider |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined:
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708
|
QUOTE(Willking1979 @ Sun 8th March 2009, 5:16pm) Based on a discussion on IRC, this makes the 10th time Caulde's retired. Maybe the little shit is getting in some practice for the real (world) thing. When he's 64, or whenever it is, he'll retire, then start working again, and so on. Stretch it out till he's a hundred. QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 8th March 2009, 5:41pm) Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) " ...don't leave, Caulde. You're such an outstanding admin and great user. Please stay. Please. I'd miss you incredibly badly". Brings a tear to the eye.
|
|
|
|
gadfly |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined:
Member No.: 10,218
|
QUOTE(Bottled_Spider @ Sun 8th March 2009, 10:21pm) QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Sun 8th March 2009, 5:41pm) Aitias, another morally bankrupt child, is already on the talkpage pining for him. :lol: " ...don't leave, Caulde. You're such an outstanding admin and great user. Please stay. Please. I'd miss you incredibly badly". Brings a tear to the eye. More to the point, if Aitias thinks that of him, it is almost a guarantee that he was/will return to be a useless admin.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 8th March 2009, 6:10pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 8th March 2009, 5:25pm) I applaud anyone who sees the light and quits wasting their time at that place, but this Caulde (T-C-L-K-R-D)
guy? What had he written? A look at his last 500 edits shows no evidence that this guy was creating content for readers. (numbers) Not quite as bad as Essjay, to be fair. Eight percent of Essjay's edits were to actual articles? Eight? For crying out loud, and this guy was on Jimbo's fast track? You've got to be kidding me. Caulde's article edits were at 20%. Much better.
|
|
|
|
Willking1979 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
From: Kentucky
Member No.: 9,736
|
Looks like Caulde reads WR. From the protection log:
11:56, March 9, 2009 Caulde (talk | contribs) protected User talk:Caulde [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Don't intend to return, I've lost interest in this shithole and the pricks (cue Malleus) on it; and, WR, this isn't the 10th time I've retired.) (hist)
|
|
|
|
Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
|
|
|
|
Willking1979 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
From: Kentucky
Member No.: 9,736
|
East718 just removed Caulde's uncivil comment from the protection log:
13:56, March 9, 2009 East718 (talk | contribs) protected User talk:Caulde [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (user invoked m:RTV) (hist)
13:56, March 9, 2009 East718 (talk | contribs) unprotected User talk:Caulde ‎ (chg unprofessional log comment that's shown to all visitors of this page) (hist)
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Malleus, I like your talk page. It's snappy. I bet you've got some admins hating you. Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 10th March 2009, 12:59am) QUOTE Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Malleus, I like your talk page. It's snappy. I bet you've got some admins hating you. Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them.
|
|
|
|
LaraLove |
|
Wikipedia BLP advocate
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined:
Member No.: 4,627
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 12:02am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 10th March 2009, 12:59am) QUOTE Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Malleus, I like your talk page. It's snappy. I bet you've got some admins hating you. Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them. Haha. Eric's comment reminds me of an award Ling.Nut made for me a couple summers ago. "The Wasabi on the Wiki-sushi" award. He wrote: "I like reading your emails and talk page postings, Lara. I can always count on your comments to be...spicy? Zingy? Something with a little kick? :-) ... You are the wasabi on the wiki-sushi. :-) Ling.Nut 5 September 2007 (UTC)" That's fitting for you, I think, Malleus. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 9th March 2009, 11:02pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 10th March 2009, 12:59am) QUOTE Do me a favour. Do you really think you're the first to wave that big stick at me? I'll tell you what I tell everyone who waves it; stick it up your arse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Malleus, I like your talk page. It's snappy. I bet you've got some admins hating you. Anyone who gets blocked by a prick like Aitias can't be all bad.........(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) I flatter myself that there are more than just"some" admins who hate me. But they couldn't possibly hate me more than I hate them. Do you wish every admin to hate you? For if you do, you fail. I know of at least one who does not.
|
|
|
|
AlioTheFool |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 48
Joined:
Member No.: 8,758
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 9th March 2009, 10:57pm) QUOTE(Bottled_Spider @ Mon 9th March 2009, 10:01pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 9th March 2009, 8:01pm) I must check up on the banning rules here before I post again, just to be on the safe side. This is well funny. Wikipedia can be so entertaining. Thank you very much. Seemed reasonable to me. Both talk in word salad and have a pretentious tendency to use foreign languages inappropriately.But that would cast far too wide a net!
|
|
|
|
seicer |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined:
Member No.: 4,854
|
Someone might find these useful. I'm still learning the Google Charts API, and I'd like to see these in other formats eventually. New Administrators and Resignation GraphsSome notes: 1. Resignations spiked at 8 in September 2006, 16 in December 2008 and 12 in January 2009. 2. The number of new administrators peaked in October and December 2005 at 72. The number of new administrators through 2008 declined steadily, from a high of 36 to a low of 6. For 2009, the trend points downward or steady. 3. The number of resignations over new administrators first occurred in December 2008, and occurred again in January and March 2009. This excludes data prior to 2007. The last graph has a detailed view of the last six months. So... 1. The RFA process has become more difficult, which can explain some of the new administrator drops from 2005 onward. However, this does not explain the entire situation, as the number of new administrator applications has also dropped (graph coming tomorrow). 2. The number of resignations has increased dramatically over the past 15 months, and the trend points upward. Burnout, fatigue, and discontent seem to be the predominant rationales. For a long time, we counted on a healthy count of administrators to serve Wikipedia. I haven't even begun to go through the inactive list. At a brief glance, many who became administrators from 2004 to 2006 are either inactive or have diminished quantities of edits. This either indicates burnout, fatigue, time constraints, and so on. If the trend continues, then the replenishment rate will continue to be negative, but I do not suspect that it will affect Wikipedia's performance for at least another year. This post has been edited by seicer:
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
The way this wiki-madhouse is set up, without admins to fix endless questionable changes, it would turn into a shredded pile of graffiti-crap within a few weeks. It's already starting. QUOTE(seicer @ Tue 10th March 2009, 7:59pm) Thanks Seicer, good work! You realize that if Wikipedia were a stock-issuing, for-profit corporation, this would probably be covered up, because it would cause their stock price to drop like a stone? Jim Cramer would be on his show, screaming "Sell sell sell".
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:22am) The way this wiki-madhouse is set up, without admins to fix endless questionable changes, it would turn into a shredded pile of graffiti-crap within a few weeks. It's already starting.
It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:28am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th March 2009, 9:04pm) Why this emphasis on administrators? At best they're simply there to hold back the tide of vanadlism, and there are better and more efficient ways of doing that; at worst ... well add your own expletives. So they can guard whatever wikipeda currently contains, but that will get easier as the content providers and subject experts also desert the project. So no problem at all really, they can be just like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, protecting a wooden cup. Except in their case the wooden cup really is just a wooden cup. Administrators are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer of them the better.
I think you're thinking of the Indiana Jones holy grail. The one with the majick peroxide in it. Castle Anthrax had only a grail light in Python. Which they kept leaving on. Requiring punishment for the naughty! (IMG: http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/spank.gif) I was, yes, you're quite right. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 8:37pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:32am) It isn't admins who fix most of the crap, or even very much of the crap; it's the regular editors who do that. As I said, admins are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fewer the better.
Where is your evidence for this? For which part of this? Uh, scrub that, I see it's you Majorly. Not interested in your games either here or elsewhere. And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you. Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. Sure, they may damage certain people's egos, but aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia and do their best to maintain its upkeep. There are of course normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through vandalism, original research, NPOV statements, libel, copyvios etc. An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped (I say most likely because someone is bound to find an example of one that wasn't). They may not all write all the time, but they help out in tons of other ways. It's an insult to those administrators who dedicate hundreds thousands of hours to Wikipedia, writing tons of excellent articles, and improving lots more - as well as lots of maintenance admin work. I'm surprised you'd make a sweeping statement "admins are part of the problem" (well actually I'm not but whatever). You mean people like Iridescent, Jennavecia, Casliber, Rlevse, Jbmurray, Nev1, Ddstretch etc are all part of the problem? It's funny, there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. Just somebody's say-so. It was probably a little too much to ask you where you get this idea from, still it would be interesting to know all the same.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ... Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D)
fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources. If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system. You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts.
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) Still, I really would like to know who and how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia. ... normal editors that damage the encyclopedia on a daily basis - through ... original research, NPOV statements, ... An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped ... Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D)
fits your description of an admin -- of the most powerful kind -- who does immense damage to WP by leading a merry band who insert as much POV and bias of their particular partisan variety into the "encyclopedia". As documented here on WR and on WP, Jayjg, IronDuke, NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, JoshuaZ and others use Jay's admin tools and the worst kind of system-gaming imaginable to drive WP in a direction far, far from reliable real-world academic or journalistic sources. If you want another, SlimVirgin continues (albeit at a lower level) to drive her POV on articles relating to "Animal Rights" and similar. The whole Prem Rawat thing has also been covered here and elsewhere. That also involves a powerful admin. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all admins are evil, venal, POV-pushers, just many of them. It seems to be one of the rewards of working within such an insane system. You're (of course) free to push your mindless pro-Wikipedia position here, but it isn't supported by even a cursory look at the facts. Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? Did I ever give the impression I agree with every single one of them, and think they all do a brilliant job? No, I did not. I am saying the suggestion that every single one is a problem is big words, but no substance. I never denied there are problematic admins, ever, at any point. So do not imply I did. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
gomi |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined:
Member No.: 565
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:36pm) Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? ... No, I did not. And I didn't say every single one is evil. Just most. You did say: QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) I would like to know how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia ... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia ... there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. So it's like this: I read exactly what you wrote: "aside from ... rogue admins, all desysopped ... all care ... about the encyclopedia". That is what you wrote, and also the distinct impression you left with any reader with two brain cells to rub together. But when I present "examples, evidence", you backpedal. Are you stupid or just too Wiki-brainwashed to know what you are typing?
|
|
|
|
Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:23pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:18pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) ... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped ...
You're one of those, aren't you? Try again. Ah yes, I remember now. You jumped before you were pushed. This post has been edited by Malleus:
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:50pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 4:36pm) Did I say at any time, anywhere at all, that all admins on Wikipedia were absolute stars? ... No, I did not. And I didn't say every single one is evil. Just most. You did say: QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:58pm) I would like to know how someone came up with the idea admins actually cause damage to the encyclopedia ... aside from maybe a handful of rogue admins, all desysopped, all care much about the encyclopedia ... there's always talk about this sort of thing, but no real evidence. No examples, no nothing. So it's like this: I read exactly what you wrote: "aside from ... rogue admins, all desysopped ... all care ... about the encyclopedia". That is what you wrote, and also the distinct impression you left with any reader with two brain cells to rub together. But when I present "examples, evidence", you backpedal. Are you stupid or just too Wiki-brainwashed to know what you are typing? It helps if you don't pick and choose what to quote from me. QUOTE An admin caught doing that would most likely be desysopped (I say most likely because someone is bound to find an example of one that wasn't). Thank you for finding the example. Have a sticker.
|
|
|
|
Bottled_Spider |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 533
Joined:
From: Pictland
Member No.: 9,708
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:19am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 5:18pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.
Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest? Yeah, this thread sucks majorly. Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?!
|
|
|
|
Wikileaker |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 62
Joined:
Member No.: 4,864
|
QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 8:18pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.
Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest? I'm not feeling the love from you. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)
|
|
|
|
wikiwhistle |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined:
Member No.: 3,953
|
QUOTE(Bottled_Spider @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:26am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:19am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 5:18pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.
Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest? Yeah, this thread sucks majorly. Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?! You think it's the first time? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I heard he spends a lot of time in Manchester (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Or did I get that wrong?
|
|
|
|
Alex |
|
Back from the dead
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
|
QUOTE(wikiwhistle @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:37am) QUOTE(Bottled_Spider @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:26am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 12th March 2009, 12:19am) QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 5:18pm) QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 11th March 2009, 10:58pm) And you're Malleus Fatuorum? Nice to meet you.
Can we split off the Malleus-Wikileaker-Alex lovefest? Yeah, this thread sucks majorly. Lucky little majorly. There's a first time for everything, eh?! You think it's the first time? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) I heard he spends a lot of time in Manchester (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Or did I get that wrong? Yeah, me and Malleus out on the town. It's really fun! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
seicer |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined:
Member No.: 4,854
|
Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last): "Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, March 2008 June 2007 to March 2009" http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.phpThe number of total inactive administrators has increased steadily. I'm digging through 2007 data now.This post has been edited by seicer:
|
|
|
|
Gold heart |
|
Lean duck!
Group: Inactive
Posts: 938
Joined:
Member No.: 5,183
|
QUOTE(seicer @ Thu 12th March 2009, 1:01am) Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last): "Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, March 2008 June 2007 to March 2009" http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.phpThe number of total inactive administrators has increased steadily. I'm digging through 2007 data now.Many of the more wise admins hide their tools, and take a back seat most of the time. The active admins get burned out.
|
|
|
|
gadfly |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined:
Member No.: 10,218
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 12th March 2009, 3:14am) Is this the "collegial atmosphere" I've heard so much about? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) Actually, real life academic debate at conferences, and so on, is not the lovey-dovey affair that the rose-tinted glasses that wikipedia would like to have us believe when they indulge in their love-hate relationship of both downplaying the potential contributions of real experts as well as trying to ape their idealised and false idea of the ways matters really proceed in academia: I have never seen such visciousness as I have in some hard yet highly important and productive academic debates. On one occasion when I was giving a talk, others had to gently calm down an attendee from getting out of his seat to throw a few punches at me when I pointed out his inconsistent premises in his criticism of my main points. The matter was resolved by continued discussion, not with exclusion or expulsion, and progress was made. Real intellectual progress, striving towards clarity etc, is a struggle in both metaphorical and real terms, often requiring real courage, and the imposition of all the wiki-lurv we see can become just a tool to exclude real contributors and opportunities for real progress. The civility rules often used by the mind-guards to root out and deal with real exasperation with some infantile passive-aggression or incompentences in members of the in-group is such a laughable signal that those who hold the power don't seem to have a clue. I would have said it becomes a means of allowing the triumph of mediocrity over excellence, but we are now not even seeing mediocrity triumph.
|
|
|
|
Guido den Broeder |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
|
QUOTE(seicer @ Thu 12th March 2009, 2:01am) Still digging through the data, but here is an updated graph (last): "Total, new and resigned administrators total sorted by beginning of month, June 2007 to March 2009" http://www.americanbyways.com/googlechart/index.php I very telling chart. Thanks, Seicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |