Wikipedia Is Run By Morons and Here's Why - SYS-CON Media (press release) Options

[Newsfeed]

Wikipedia Is Run By Morons and Here's Why

SYS-CON Media (press release)

Why do I say this? Obviously I've just had yet another bad experience with the self-professed Gods who “manage” the encyclopaedia. ...

View the article

[thekohser]

This guy is VERY fired up. I like it.

Note, the actual original post, with scores of comments is found here.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 15th July 2009, 7:01pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

This guy is VERY fired up.

Not so much for making coherent points, though. A lot of proof by assertion there.

[One]

This guy is VERY fired up.

Not so much for making coherent points, though. A lot of proof by assertion there.

Yeah, I lost him at "Wikipedia Is Run By Morons and Here’s Why. Wikipedia moderators make Hitler look like a hobbyist."

Besides the normal reply "Godwin!", the second sentence seems to imply (1) Hitler was a moron, (2) the opposite of Moron is "hobbyist." All of these propositions seem to have problems.

[Adambro]

This seems to be in "News Worth Discussing". I think someone must have made a mistake here.

[LaraLove]

This guy is VERY fired up. I like it.

Note, the actual original post, with scores of comments is found here.

tl:dr

[thekohser]

And, once again, the pro-Wikipediots have to poo-pooh the on-the-mark reactions of a REAL PERSON who experiences Wikipedia the way it was intended to be -- as a revenge platform -- not realizing the whole "encyclopedia of human knowledge" thing is just a sham.

[Sarcasticidealist]

And, once again, the pro-Wikipediots have to poo-pooh the on-the-mark reactions of a REAL PERSON who experiences Wikipedia the way it was intended to be -- as a revenge platform -- not realizing the whole "encyclopedia of human knowledge" thing is just a sham.

Can you cite the part of the post where he talks about it being used as a revenge platform? I somehow missed that. All I got was "Wikipedia moderators are power-hungry pseudo-Nazis, and I am very angry for some reason!"

I don't think any of One, Lara, or I has ever denied that Wikipedia is used as a revenge platform. But that doesn't mean that everybody who's angry at Wikipedia has a coherent point to make.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Wed 15th July 2009, 7:45pm

[SirFozzie]

Sys-Con.. hah. there's a name that brings up some not-quite-so-fond memories.. especially of Maureen O'Gara, during the Groklaw issues.

As for the original press release, *yawn*

[gelugor]

I'm lost by the first five words of the title, "Wikipedia Is Run By Morons". Since when has that been news?

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'm lost by the first five words of the title, "Wikipedia Is Run By Morons". Since when has that been news?

That part's that news, or would be if it was true, is the first three words of that title.

[Kelly Martin]

It's incoherent rants like this that give Wikipedia criticism a bad name.

[EricBarbour]

Gee, I had a few choice things to say about Sys-Con on my blog, months ago.

Sys-Con Media looks like a serious, well-funded software news site, right? Well, turns out it's run by a crazed Turk, Fuat Kircaali, who is quite fond of using his "news site" to attack his critics. Bonus! Sys-Con apparently also loves to steal the writings of tech bloggers without their permission. And attack them when caught.

[thekohser]

I'd rather not get caught up in the site that re-posted the original piece, and I'd almost rather you all just look at the Comments field of the original, and maybe you'll get an idea of the quantity of people that Wikipedia actually pisses off.

Why is that?

[LaraLove]

And, once again, the pro-Wikipediots have to poo-pooh the on-the-mark reactions of a REAL PERSON who experiences Wikipedia the way it was intended to be -- as a revenge platform -- not realizing the whole "encyclopedia of human knowledge" thing is just a sham.

I hope this wasn't directed at me. I skimmed over it, as it really was tl;dr, and it just seemed to be typical hyperbolic ramblings from some nutjob that got tossed out early in his editing for spamming or something. I didn't actually notice where he detailed exactly why he was pissed, but I saw several references to WP:SPAM.

And, of course, considering I work almost exclusively with BLP, it would be sort of silly to say that I don't realize that WP is used as a revenge platform. I see it all the time. Not to mention, considering my commentary both here and on WP, one would be hardpressed to call me pro-Wikipeida. I'm just not completely anti-Wikipedia.

[Nerd]

It's incoherent rants like this that give Wikipedia criticism a bad name.

Indeed. There's ways to criticise, and there's ways not to. The title immediately gives away the lack of any credibility to this.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Indeed. There's ways to criticise, and there's ways not to. The title immediately gives away the lack of any credibility to this.

I don't even care if you want to use invective, hyperbole, and over-the-top comparisons, provided that, at the core, you have a point. I don't see this guy's.

[EricBarbour]

I don't even care if you want to use invective, hyperbole, and over-the-top comparisons, provided that, at the core, you have a point. I don't see this guy's.

The point is not so much his rant---it's all the pissed-off people who posted comments below it. And are still posting comments, EIGHT MONTHS after the original blog post.

(I was helpful, and posted a link to WR. Welcome them with open arms. )

[thekohser]

I'm wondering if anyone here is going to possibly draw the conclusion that Wikipedia's culture of abuse drives many people to hurl invective back at that culture?

That's really all I was saying about this post and the comments that followed.

If you want to dismiss it, fine.

If you want to pick it apart and criticize it for not being pointed-enough invective, fine.

I found it instructive, so I'll shut up now.

[Somey]

I don't see what's so "incoherent" about this - it's basically the classic "visionary futurists vs. uncomprehending morons who think they're fighting spamming con-men" situation. I mean, WP already has articles on Software as a service (T-H-L-K-D) (SaaS), Infrastructure as a service (T-H-L-K-D), Everything as a service (T-H-L-K-D), and so on. People are certainly trying to sell "data as a service" (DaaS). So the question is, are the people on Wikipedia who are trying to squelch this material really qualified to say whether this is real or not?

Worst case, the WP'ers in question might be people who have a vested financial interest in preventing businesses from seeing DaaS as a viable alternative to existing SaaS solutions, or perhaps as an alternative to Haagen Dazs ice cream, which can be very fattening to say the least.