How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

[GlassBeadGame]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

I don't think Peter intended to kill anyone, just cause the demise of a dysfunctional website. Even at that his language is conditional and he will probably be back to work "building the encyclopedia" in no time flat.

[aeon]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

For all your destructive designs, your userpage says you're "in retirement [–] until October 3 2009." (dash my own for obvious effect). Seriously PD, what the hell? I find your labelling of the community as "not normal" a bit ironic; I don't think a person who has retired and then returned and then bitterly left again saying "wah wah, I want to destroy Wikipedia!" and who is so obviously in a love-hate affair with Wikipedia can be called "normal" either. You can't even retire properly (..."until October 3 2009").

Get out of limbo land. Make up your mind to either stay or leave. The pitifulness of the situation is reaching sickening heights, and no-one's fooled by this latest proclamation of anti-Wikipedianism.

And before anyone points out to me that I'm making a nuisance of myself, this is part of my 35%.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[gomi]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

[Nerd]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

[carbuncle]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

[Nerd]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

It's true that, given its location in the sentence, "the place" could be taken to refer to the hospital. Contextually, I have a hard time seeing how one could not realize that he meant Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

How Do You Stop The Pusher, Man?

Stop Buying, Dope!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

Always remember, "Nerd" is "Nerd" spelled forwards.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

They don't need to be moved.

With all the barking mad people safely locked inside the luny hospital named Wikipedia, we can simply start anew elsewhere.

[wikiwhistle]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Eh? He said heal their lives- that they be given the mental health care they need. Unless you mean wikipedia is some people's lives (which could be right lol)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[dtobias]

"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"

[Milton Roe]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

Good, because you're already past the bounds of what is known or even reasonable. How do we know the requirements of simple user account registration (have a paid email account which you probably have anyway, and put in the gigantic mental effort to select a username and password) are such a horrible disincentive to drive-by editing? Particularly when they get you out of having to do the stupid CAPTCHA anytime you add a weblink, which you're often doing anyway if you're doing any editing of any value (which will include some weblinks surely in your cites). The time you lose creating a username is paid back almost immediately in CAPTCHAs not seen.

Same for the extra stuff you get like ability to send email to others and upload images. And if you want to edit protected Wikis (a larger and larger fraction) you have to register and wait out the confirmation time. Okay, so you have to wait 4 days-- again big deal. In 4 days, you're going to be the same place you are now, except 4 days older and without the ability to edit sprotected stuff if you didn't make the necessary application 4 days ago. This is not NOT a good argument. It's been made by the WMF for years and there's NOTHING logical behind it. If you ask them, their evidence consists of some francophone fr.wikis where the IP vandalism doesn't remotely resemble en.wiki's, which find that most of the good editing (for a very small group of editors with very few edits) is done by IPs. In France and Belgium. So what? Most of the IP-vandalism done here, isn't done by ANYBODY over there, because they aren't big vandals even when they ARE IP-users. What does that tell you?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Nothing! It tells you that, for over here, you don't know. Which, as Socrates reminds us, is sometimes a good place to start.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I feel the same way about Scotland. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[victim of censorship]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Wikipedia should be closed down, the Domain sold, the data base purged and the servers sold and monies realized, be given to a worth charity.

[Somey]

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

It probably depends on whether they're to be treated as addicts, criminals, cult-brainwashing victims, abuse victims, or ordinary lunatics. Being a charitable sort myself, I'd prefer to think of them as victims of some sort or other, but of course that's hard cheese on the people they've victimized. From a psychological perspective I'd say "cult-brainwashing victims" is the closest to what the really hardcore ones are, but that's a small minority. Another possibility is to create a whole new category for them, but then someone would have to come up with a name for the category, and "Wikipediots" is too silly-sounding to bring in any serious public-health money.

Anyhoo, this is all theoretical, right?

[Sarcasticidealist]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

[Kelly Martin]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.

[Somey]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm thinking this is more a reference to the way non-emergency hospitalization tends to do the patient more harm than good. Plus being formally diagnosed with a mental disorder will limit one's employment opportunities regardless whether it is accurate or whether the symptoms are anything to worry about.

But once you're checked into the Fourth Floor (because the symptoms are something to worry about, or because they can't make up their fucking minds) you'd better just hope there isn't a fire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Q:How to utterly destroy Wikipedia
A:Leave/Put Jimbo in charge

[Peter Damian]

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

I had always thought the way to correct this problem is to work from inside and try to change people's perceptions from inside Wikipedia. I have always had a belief that this is the best way to change things.

I now think that this is like going into a crack house and persuading the inhabitants to leave. This is a mistake. They should be gently but firmly led out, put into a hospital and allowed to withdraw from their addiction, and the crack house utterly destroyed without trace. (I hope that makes my metaphor clear).

But again, how would one do this?

Some ideas:

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.
2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly write up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

<snipped out tl;dr material>

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?

[Peter Damian]

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?

So what should I be doing?

[edit] I am in the unenviable position of being a hated figure on Wikipedia for my role in the unseating of one adminstrator and one arbitrator. And being hated here for my belief that it is still possible to work for change within Wikipedia.

I am being quite consistent. I am utterly opposed to the current governance system in Wikipedia, and the way that it guarantees the survival of a certain rentier class. It is that I want to destroy, and always have. And if you look at my editing pattern, it shows no evidence of any addiction, I think. For example, look at all my edits today

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...et=Peter+Damian

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kevin]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Surely you don't actually believe this?

[Peter Damian]

OK that was tongue in cheek. But let's be more scientific. We assume that the election of every new administrator has been opposed, and so the admin population is falling by the natural attrition rate (I believe we have some stats around this). Then work out how much each admin has to do in terms of fighting vandalism and estimate how much the work load would be increased by the falling admin population. At some point there would be a 'tipping effect' - a small number of admins realise that the fight is hopeless, and give up. This in turn increases the workload on the remaining admins, who give up in orderly fashion, and the dyke collapses.

[Milton Roe]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Surely you don't actually believe this?

No, but they'd certainly notice the "WR-block" of opposes, and change the rules to stop "off-site" canvassing. We'd all be labeled "meatpuppets" (at least those of us who agreed with each other enough to make this block) and kicked out, in some way. They'd have to. A block of 50 oppose votes, even 25 opposed votes, would swing most of the recent RfAs. The real problem with WR is its own integrety and (allow me this bit of horntooting) our good taste. Also, the unwillingness here by many people to vote against what looks like a decent admin candidate, just to monkeywrench the works of WP in general.

Though it might be fun to try it ONCE, just to see the fireworks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

It was pretty good even when we saw Ottava Rima start to try it abortively: "All those mean-mean WR people came here to vote against meeeeee." And all those stick-in-the-mud WP people who wouldn't be caught dead on WR also, turns out.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Wups.

Of course, it's not as though little Kabbals don't occur on WP from little backchannel cliques. How often have you seen SlimVirgin, Crum375, Nevard, and the ever power-amassing Jayjg (back when he was with us) vote against each other in an RfC where they did vote? Not too damn often. But if you blinded them all from each other's votes? Methinks that would be about as interesting an experiment as making the French wine judges taste wines with the labels hidden. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Hey--- they can't tell Napa Valley from Bordeaux. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[EricBarbour]

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)

[JohnA]

"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"

Watching Wikipedia from this close is rather like watching Orwell's Ministry of Truth - from the inside the actions of the bureaucrats are banal and petty, but from the outside the results are a complete loss of freedom by reason of cultural and historical memory loss.

Edit:

Wikipedia will never be destroyed. If Wikimedia was shut down tomorrow, there'd be a hundred avatars of the same content desperate to be the next Wikipedia.

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[Peter Damian]

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)

I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

[JohnA]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

[Peter Damian]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.

[Kevin]

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

I would be most surprised if Google were remotely interested in the perceived accuracy of Wikipedia, so long as it drives traffic throught their site.

So long as readers visit Wikipedia, it will exist. And so long as "consensus" is used to determine policy, no substantive change can or will take place. What is needed is some leadership for the masses, and seeing as we don't have sharp sticks to make people follow as is done in RL, the aspiring leader will need to use charisma and persuasion, both in short supply.

[Kelly Martin]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Nonsense. They'll just restructure the election process so that the objections don't count.

Wikipedia isn't Iran. It's not possible for there to be a general strike with hundreds of thousands of editors clogging the streets, refusing to edit, and there's no international community breathing down Wikipedia's neck watching every move with bated breath. Nobody cares if Wikipedia's elections are a farce.

[JohnA]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.

If it was that easy I would have done it by now. You might as well have said

1. Make business plan
2. ????
3. Profit!

..for all the use that is. Venture capital companies are rather leery about investing generally at the moment, particularly in seed rounds where there is a well-known competitor which is free (as in beer). In order to get VC interest I've got to create some winning formula to bring in revenue that will give investors an excellent return and a clear exit strategy (like an IPO). I think I have that idea, but I have no money to even begin to lay it out.

Maybe someone should ask Don Murphy if he'd like to help fund the seed round of an encyclopedia project that will kick Wikipedia's ass by actually behaving *shock* *horror* like a bona fide publishing company. Alternatively (and this is my better idea) a new technology which will allow Encyclopedia Britannica and mainstream media outlets to publish on the Net profitably and would probably be picked up by Google or Microsoft in a heartbeat because of the new potential revenue streams it would generate.

Somebody ask him or any lurking VCs (I wish) that are reading this.

[sbrown]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

[aeon]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Dubious percentage.

[Peter Damian]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Good - very good.

[Peter Damian]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

[aeon]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

You could start by paying off the editors listed for that idiot cabal you tried and failed to get going. Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

[Peter Damian]

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

[carbuncle]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

[aeon]

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

I thought it only took a phony idea.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Kato]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

[Peter Damian]

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

I thought it only took a phony idea.

Is there any reason for this unremitting hostility? Are you one of those who regard me as a traitor to Wikipedia Review, or a traitor to Wikipedia?

Please say what you really think.

Are you FT2 by any chance?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

Interesting take. You really think the formatting is a detriment to the usability? The main crux of it, the article space, is pretty plain: text, image on the right, image on the left, section headers, references (if you're lucky!), and that's it. It's pretty pedestrian, but it's functional and streamlined. It presents information without much fluff. What's your guff with it?

[Moulton]

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it.

I agree.

To my mind, the best practice at this phase of the game is to construct and publish an accurate and insightful analysis and diagnosis of the project and the participants, and to do so in as professional and credible manner as possible.

The dysfunctionality of the site's governance model is increasingly apparent, as more and more scholars and professionals publish their analyses and studies of WP's anachronistic mobocracy.

The site is dominated by a substantial number of power brokers who manifest some variety of personality disorder, (primarily Cluster B). This would be the stigmatizing portion of the diagnostic analysis, were it to come from credible and reliable sources.

[dtobias]

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

The sites I find irritating to use are the commercial ones that pop up annoying ads at you every chance they get, even managing to do it in Firefox with popups disabled through various devious coding. Wikipedia is a breath of fresh air in comparison, with pages that aren't full of things flashing, moving, and popping up at you, and articles that you can read by scrolling down without having to keep clicking "next" to go to another slow-loading page with a bite-size chunk of text surrounded by lots of ads.

[dogbiscuit]

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

I mean real political - like the good work Greg has been doing highlighting Wikipedian irresponsibility to the senators, and the little glitch they had in Britain when there was the minor Scorpion scandal which was badly mishandled even though the action of the net nannies was not as inappropriate as suggested by That Man in the Leather Trousers.

To make inroads on that, the main argument of Wikipedia that needs to be undermined is the "responsibility == censorship" where any suggestion of common sense controls, including self-control is poo-poo'd as old fashioned reactionary twaddle.

The meme that should be being worked up is that Wikipedia is a resource of the people, by the people, and it is an international disgrace that such a potentially useful resource is being squandered and undermined by a bunch of irresponsible oiks. If this was a banking system or the motor industry, Obama and Brown would have already intervened (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Good - very good.

Get off the Wheel, Peter. Stopping caring about whether Wikipedia "succeeds" with or without your silly "contributions." It is not about you. Criticize Wikipedia for the harm it does to innocent persons outside itself. Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else. They only deserve the care you might have for anyone else whose addiction is exploited. Care about the pornography and lack of child protective measures on the site whether you are on the outs or not.

You sound like a junky desperately trying to get a free fix from his dealer by threatening to turn him in to the police.

[thekohser]

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

It would seem that Peter Damian and (perhaps) JohnA are on a track that I was on, back in February 2008.

Maybe there is something to be considered in a coalescing movement to create "the next Wikipedia". The key differences might be:

• Copyright, rather than copyleft; or non-commercial re-use only
• Free to read*, not free to edit
• Editorial attribution to real-named individuals
• Advertising and sponsorship revenues
• Revenues distributed to the most influential editors
• Endorsement by academia, news-gathering organizations, and NGO's

I used to think I don't have the reputation capital or clout to launch such an initiative, and I probably still feel exactly the same way. But, maybe a group of "nobodies" like us could collectively recruit the necessary "somebodies" who might make this work. It would have to be a combination of venture capital and a knowledge-celebrity spokesperson on the notability level of Al Gore or at least Neil deGrasse Tyson.


*Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee).

[Peter Damian]

Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee). [/size]

Agree with you Greg and you are the one person who knows how to run such a site (Sanger's model was an improvement but sadly Larry never acquired the gentle art of making people feel welcome). But will a fee-based model work? Why can't subtle, targeted advertising work just as well? Even the philosophy pages on Wikipedia get a readership of millions. As for Britney Spears ....

[Shalom]

Reply to the initial request:

Pray. I sometimes insert in my prayers the words "destroy Wikipedia's corrupt power structure." I'm not kidding. At first it was a joke but now it's become a nervous habit. So far it hasn't produced results.

[Somey]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

[anthony]

For the most part I think we should just leave it alone and let it destroy itself. And I'm pretty much convinced that's going to happen. Not that it's going to blow up and go away in a blaze of glory. That *probably* won't be the exit. Its destruction will be more gradual, slowly it'll become more and more unreliable until Wikipedia is just as useless as the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Faster than Britannica though, because they'll probably hold on to "anyone can edit" until the bitter end.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

[Malleus]

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

I think I'd agree with that. Although I take part in the reform discussions, I do so in the full knowledge that no reforms will result. I'm a fool to myself really.

[Peter Damian]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

[GlassBeadGame]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.

Gag. The analogy of occupied France is not apt. Wikipedia is a menace that harms it innocent neighbors and Wikipedians sign up to inflict this harm freely of their own volition. It has not been "occupied" by foreign forces or "stabbed in the back" by something disloyal within. Its participants are responsible for the harm they cause. I'm not a "freedom fighter" just another guy with a little microphone. I'm not concerned with the internal dramas or careers of the bringers of the Blitz. I want to make the world aware of the harm they do. This is London Calling.

[Cedric]

In answer to the original question, I have long been of the opinion that Wikipedia is well into the process of destroying itself by slowly, but surely, damaging its reputation. However, I believe EricBarbour is right in thinking that this will take years to play out (it has already taken at least two).

I suppose if you wanted to take things into your own hands to hasten this process, you could try what I call the "Uriah Heep Solution". That is, register an account and start hanging out on the talk pages of WP's worst cabalistas. Shower them with loads of unctuous praise and play to all their worst behaviors and desires. Do little favors for them as well, like placing nasty block warning messages on the talk pages of editors they don't like or have conflicts with. Never miss an opportunity to sneer at experts, sing the praises of Jimbo and "free culture", and extol the wisdom of "banned means banned". In time, you might get nominated in a RFA. If you pass, then you can really do some damage.

Personally, I think that is all way too much work. I think that just sitting back and observing the natural process of decay is far less stressful and more instructive. However, I cannot eliminate the possibility that there are some undercover Uriah Heeps at work on WP already. We cannot be sure that there is no one within the current Cabal that is consciously attempting to bring WP down. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

...

(Dreamily) Oh, Peter, and I thought you were against fighting vandalism...?

[emesee]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

[gomi]

... English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" .... the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

Anyone remember Alta Vista? ..... I thought so.

Or to quote Frank Zappa: "Some say the world will end in fire or ice, but I think there are two other possibilities: paperwork and nostalgia."

[sbrown]

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma.

That would be another advantage of my proposal. Whod want to admit involvement with a site officially declared to be unsuitable?

Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

Thats very true. If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.

[RMHED]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

[sbrown]

consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

Greshams Law. The bad drives out the good.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Or, something might change with Google. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on Google juice.

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

[Emperor]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

We're getting there, amigo.

[victim of censorship]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.

Ask Mr.Ryan Jordan. if his life was helped by the concept of Wikipedia?

Make no mistake, Wikipedia is a not a positive force in the world or the internet. Ask some of the those hurt, abuse and/or have be victim of Wikipedia theft of IP property, and reputations.

It's delusional to think Wikipedia has an positive value and to read the stories on WR should be enough to put that to rest.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[sbrown]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

We're getting there, amigo.

Yes weve established you have one good article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

But look at wikinfo. Thats making no headway and if it cant I doubt any wikiclone can. We need a completely fresh approach.

[victim of censorship]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.

cancerous tumor works for me. The Term "Canker Sore" is from the Play "Man of all seasons" by Robert Bolt.

[anthony]

If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.

For how many minutes?

[Malleus]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?

Hint. "A profit without honor …"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[anthony]

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?

Wikia?

[Kelly Martin]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

[RMHED]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid benevolent well-meaning chap.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[anthony]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid.

Makes about as much sense as non-alcoholic beer. But hey, they manage to sell that, so who knows.

[Kevin]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality. When you look at the types of mass media that are popular, tabloid news etc, it is unclear that the masses are interested in the distinction. At the moment I doubt also whether much of the general readership of Wikipedia understands it's flaws at all.

[anthony]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality.

Is the idea that the commercial entity is going to improve the quality?

I think that's a pipe dream. A pipe dream I once believed, but a pipe dream nonetheless. The work it'd take to fact check a Wikipedia article, to confirm that it wasn't plagiarized, to ensure that it was neutral, etc. would be about as much effort as just hiring someone to write it from scratch. And in the latter case you don't have to deal with the problems of copyleft.

[MZMcBride]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

[RMHED]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?

[The Joy]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Bam! There it is! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/Special:NewFiles

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Featured_Wikia/Spankingart/Blurb

Oh and Wikia has a new spanking wiki up. No Boy Scouts, thankfully.

http://spankinghelp.wikia.com/wiki/Spanking_Wiki

[Somey]

But that's just it -- Damian hasn't noticed or done anything. If he wishes to espouse the anti-Wikipedia sentiment, so be it. BUT HE CAN'T EVEN LEAVE WIKIPEDIA. He's in a limbo land. That's weak.

What difference does it make if he "leaves"? I mean, sure, he should leave, just like everybody else, but I don't see why failing to do so (or do so decisively) should preclude him from espousing anti-Wikipedia sentiments. (Unless of course you're a hardcore WP'er and you just want to "get rid of" people who espouse such sentiments.)

Again, I agree with you that he (and most other WP folks) should "leave." But there's no single "correct" cookie-cutter approach to the WP problem for everyone, is there? It really depends on the person - I myself have never made a single edit on WP, for example, so if anyone could get away with insisting on total disengagement as the only path to integrity, it would be me. But I wouldn't say I'm known for promoting that as the solution for all people in all cases. (Though I'll admit, it often is!)

...what was the EEA? Reform? Don't be ridiculous. It was genuine participation in the community, or an attempt to do so.

It can't be both things? Stark binary thinking is a sign of you-know-what, Im afraid. And all this talk of "loyalties" makes me a little uncomfortable...

Personally, I would have to say that some sort of editorial board actually would be a requirement for a responsible, quality encyclopedia-like website of WP's size and internal complexity. I understand why they don't think they need one, and it's fairly obvious that most of them don't want one, but I don't blame him for suggesting something of that nature - pointless though it may be.

For what it's worth, I don't buy any of the stuff some of you say about fighting the good fight against Wikipedia. I've not seen any evidence of it.

How about fighting the bad fight, then? Or the not-morally-aligned fight?

And suggestions for how to "fight" more correctly or effectively are always welcome, within reason of course.

[JohnA]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

[A Horse With No Name]

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

Please do not engage in personal attacks -- rats behave with far more sincerity and intelligence than the average Wikipedia administrator. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.

Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.

[Peter Damian]

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.

Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.

Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?

[thekohser]

Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?

Whatever you want. The "particular situation" could even center on the idiocy of our tolerance for Aeon's so-called "contributions" here at Wikipedia Review, and how his presence makes the level of discussion here so much more juvenile and acrimonious than it could otherwise be without him.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Mod note: Various posts now live in the tar pit.

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

[JohnA]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

[aeon]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Alex]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure of your misunderstanding - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

[Peter Damian]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

Well (1) obviously couldn't have been meant - how could Wikipedia, which was invented in the 21st century, have fucked up events which happened long before that, such as the Holocaust. Therefore (2) is the only reasonable sense. Wikipedia is seriously screwing up our record of history, and there is no doubt about that. Do you not agree? If you do, why are you reacting with such horror?

Even the Wikipedia article on history manages to get the definition right. "History is the study (teaching) of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time."

It is this which Wikipedia has fucked up entirely.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.

[Peter Damian]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.

In the old days they tended to copy things in writing so that at least the information went in subliminally.

There were no encyclopedias before Wikipedia that have made such spectacular errors as Wikipedia.

But how would you know, 'Alex'. Where actually do you get your information from?

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

[aeon]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

[Peter Damian]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

[Peter Damian]

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

[aeon]

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

They're not trying to repress dissent. Stop trying to paint yourself as a victimised martyr when you're actually the one (attempting to be) on the attack. And we don't need running commentary on which nasty Wikipedian is now calling for your blocking. Surely you considered that minor setback in your battle strategy against all things Wikipedia...? *scoffs quietly to himself*

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Alex]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

[aeon]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

Nah. Wrong. It means to inflame for the sake of inflaming. Which, in spite of your "reasoned" and "rational" protests, is *exactly* what you're doing with this thread.

[Tarc]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

[Peter Damian]

They're not try to repress dissent.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

[aeon]

They're not try to repress dissent.

!

Taking words out of context ftw.

[Peter Damian]

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

And no one is stopping him from voting?

[edit] The third remark seems inconsistent, don't you think?

People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

And no one is stopping him from voting?

Since RFA is not just a vote (you don't add comments to votes), this isn't possible.

[Tarc]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

[Alex]

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

[aeon]

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Peter Damian]

Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, your definition was inflaming 'for the sake of it'. Which I am not doing. As I said, my objections are in-principle and conscientious ones.

[Kato]

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

[Somey]

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is this "oppose" vote on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by this talk-page discussion.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.

[Peter Damian]

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is this "oppose" vote on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by this talk-page discussion.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.

To put this in context:

* I began the thread with the thesis that it is not the administration of Wikipedia that is dysfunctional, but the community, and perhaps the community should be destroyed or 'rehabilitated'.
* One of my suggestions for achieving this was consistently opposing every RfA. This would have the effect (if everyone was like-minded) of reducing the number of administrators until the system collapsed.
* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.
* The results you see here before you.
* My conclusion is that the community really is dysfunctional. OK, it took me some time to realise that. I have always had a great faith in human nature, perhaps misplaced.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

[Peter Damian]

* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

Well I'm a bit of a doubting Thomas so I like to see for myself.

[dtobias]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

[RMHED]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.

[Kelly Martin]

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

Peter doesn't apparently remember that I was threatened with a block for casting a "neutral" vote on any candidate who was not a member of a WikiProject, even though neutral votes have no bearing on the outcome of the election anyway. The mentalities at play here are quite pathological, but also quite predictable.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Yes there is: "Balloonman." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[RMHED]

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Yes there is: "Balloonman." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Balloonman is a wannabe RfA sage desperately searching for wisdom, trouble is he looks in all the wrong places.

[The Joy]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why are you editing Wikipedia then?

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

Spot on!

[anthony]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.

Or as Wikipedia puts it (in a sentence which could use 3 or 4 {{fact}} tags):

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

Sometimes it's more fun to join in, though.

Experienced participants in online forums know {{fact}} that the most effective {{fact}} way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends {{fact}} to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen {{fact}} warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

Nothing like trolling the [[troll]] article. C'mon, you know you wanna do it.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[The Joy]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Tarc]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

[aeon]

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Okay. Trolling seems to be a blacklisted term. He's being a fool, then -- surely that, at least, is still "meaningful" on WR. He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

[EricBarbour]

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

People engage in analingus for pleasure, and I'm having trouble
imagining what Mr. Ottava has to do with "pleasure".....

For that matter, that whole RFA is turning into a scrotum-chewing exercise.
A nice excuse for certain admins to take swipes at Peter.

* ...yes we can. Can't we just get rid of this bloke sans drama? If he doesn't like it good for him. Go to Google and get them to stop indexing Wikipedia if you need to. Dear me, this really is not complex. The little man is, contrary to popular and idealist belief, in actual fact very often very wrong. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Malleus]

WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

I think that's undoubtedly true.

[Ahypori]

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I was surprised by that, actually.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat ...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well, just keep David Shankbone away from it ... that is all I say. Otherwise, indecent photographs of it will only end up on the Pee-dia.

[Peter Damian]

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

[aeon]

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

What a load of nonsense.

[Somey]

What a load of nonsense.

You have to define what the word "work" means before you can call it "nonsense," don't you? If his goal is simply to object for the sake of it, so as to retain his integrity and all that sort of thing, then what's the problem?

If you have a better idea for making the RfA process grind to a halt, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Who knows, maybe we'd all even join in! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

[Somey]

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

It may be somewhat ironic, but IMO it would only be "incredible" if those same people were protesting against the right of established editors to prevent other established editors from being elected to the group of established editors.

I know, it's a silly thing to quibble over... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[EricBarbour]

You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

They could ask IP address 97.106.52.36 (T-C-L-K-R-D) why it was sooooo damned important
to tell the world that Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban......thus endangering his life......

That IP editor is a real prick, judging from the history. Charming person -- obsessed with
political hostages, FPS games, and The Godfather.

(just occurred to me......I can't think of a better way to ruin Wikipedia's golden "reputation" than
if it got someone killed. That occurrence is coming.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[JohnA]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

I think its because aeon just isn't very bright. And has never read 1984

[Milton Roe]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

Not just you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Alex]

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

Er... I do?

[A Horse With No Name]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I really cannot believe how ridiculously silly that RfA discussion has become. When brain-limited characters like EVula, J.delanoy, AllStarEcho and Giants27 flare their nostrils and flex their muscles in outrage, it is impossible not to break out in giggles. I did like Xeno throwing in a reference to Nietzsche -- though Pastor Theo referring to Pinky and the Brain might be closer to the mark in regard to the gist of the discussion. Giants27 gets an extra star for trying to dig up dirt on Peter, and Wehwalt seems to have taken the Wiki title for being a lawyer who knows how to write cogently and comically (sorry, Brad, you're all washed up!).

Nonetheless, this whole thing has been very entertaining. Kudo, Peter, for giving me a good horse laugh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.

[anthony]

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

Any by "publish" you mean simply "make available to the public"?

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

[Kelly Martin]

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

[A Horse With No Name]

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

A stable version? Ah, there would still be plenty of horse shit to shovel. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

Well here's the scoop:

I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible. I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good start. [...] I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested "before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

August 26–28 btw. Has anyone asked Brion yet what's the hold-up?

[dtobias]

You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

How, exactly, is that "extremely embarrassing" to Wikipedia? What it shows is that an information collection and dissemination medium that isn't run by a "good ol' boys' club" like the mainstream media (and thus not as easy to get to conform to "gentleman's agreements" to withhold information) is harder to keep censored; the "God King" Jimbo just barely managed to keep a lid on it, but that might eventually become impossible as he declines in community power. While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

[EricBarbour]

While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

In a general sense, perhaps. However, I'd still like to ask you, as I asked Hipocrite in
that other thread: are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?
And are you willing to speak to the family when it does happen?

This clash comes about because of that whole demented "information wants to be free"
concept that Web 2.0 and "digerati" types are always pushing, as if it were a law of
physics or something.

Information doesn't want anything, PEOPLE want something.

The only reason websites are killing newspapers and magazines, and Wikipedia is killing
encyclopedias, is because PEOPLE WANT FREE INFORMATION. And if you have total
la-la freedom on your information site, the result is very often defamation, personal
attacks, misinformation and propaganda, etc.

(In fact, allowing free editing of an information source would seem to INVITE
misinformation and propaganda.) And if someone dies as a result of said "free"
information, who is responsible? A teenager in his Florida bedroom, editing
Wikipedia while watching net-porn he scored at no cost, with his free hand shoved
down his boxer shorts? Is HE willing to apologize to the family of the deceased?

Those are damn difficult questions. What gets me, is that Jimbo did something
responsible in the case of Rohde. But his "encyclopedia" is being assembled by
random people, who may or may not be "responsible".

I still think that Times article is an embarrassment--because it shows Jimbo, being
a hypocrite and ignoring the "info wants to be free" cant that he pushed, and that
so many of his Wiki-gnomes take very seriously.

Jimbo helped create that atmosphere, and now he's making exceptions to the exception-less "rule".
And of course, his oft-deranged editor pool is playing Super Mario with people's lives.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia appears to have done the right thing here, but it's unlikely that they'll generalize from the experience. Jimbo did this because someone schmoozed him into it; it wasn't a case of them realizing ab initio that it was the right thing to do. Not everyone with a BLP can successfully schmooze Jimbo into doing the right thing, and in any case schmoozing the God-King doesn't scale.

[dtobias]

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

[Apathetic]

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

Yes, and just how much should Wikipedia censor to prevent potential harm?

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Kelly Martin]

Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?

The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.

[Apathetic]

Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?

The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.

Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?

[Kelly Martin]

Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?

Squarely on top of it. Or something. I dunno, my crystal ball is malfunctioning.

Of course it's not easy. And determining the correct course of action in any given situation is not helped by absolutists lobbing squibs from the peanut gallery.

[EricBarbour]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo? Is he going to be the proper
God-King that people constantly joke about, and pass down diktats about how
Wikipedia should run? He hasn't done much of that before, and when he has,
the result was often ugly chaos. (cough BLP cough.)

Do the Wiki users decide? Look at how they are arguing over user page indexing.
Look at certain of them stabbing Greg Kohs in the back.
I would not vote for these people, even for dogcatcher.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[anthony]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

[The Joy]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.

[JohnA]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.

Here is a list of all articles on Wikisage:

1. Main Page ‎(2,314 views)
2. Myalgic encephalomyelitis ‎(347 views)
3. Dutch units of measurement ‎(233 views)
4. Byron Hyde ‎(155 views)
5. Post-viral fatigue syndrome ‎(151 views)
6. Basic income ‎(131 views)
7. ME/CVS Vereniging ‎(114 views)
8. Tram ‎(110 views)
9. Light Rail ‎(108 views)
10. Basic Income Earth Network ‎(107 views)
11. Chronic fatigue syndrome ‎(105 views)
12. Wish You Were Here ‎(90 views)
13. Siemens-Düwag U2 ‎(85 views)
14. Wikipedia ‎(80 views)
15. Fibromyalgia ‎(76 views)
16. Pink Floyd ‎(75 views)
17. Myalgic encephalomyelitis nomenclature ‎(75 views)
18. Karel Joseph van de Poele ‎(74 views)
19. Tramway systems in the Netherlands ‎(61 views)
20. Vereniging Basisinkomen ‎(59 views)
21. Invest in ME ‎(56 views)
22. David Bell ‎(55 views)
23. Systems of measurement ‎(52 views)
24. Group 1850 ‎(51 views)
25. ME Association ‎(50 views)
26. History of Trams ‎(49 views)
27. Morgen ‎(47 views)
28. Tonne ‎(46 views)
29. List of Tramway systems ‎(46 views)
30. Daniel Peterson ‎(34 views)
31. Da Costa's syndrome ‎(27 views)

I guess there must be two or three editors at most and one of them is a hypochondriac.

And none of them should be writing encyclopedia articles.

[Guido den Broeder]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

[anthony]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.

So long as the policy didn't cause the libel, they shouldn't be. Of course, in the case of the WMF, the lack of policy arguably does cause the libel, but I thought we were talking about what should be, not what is.

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.

No, he doesn't. The popular notions of "the Section 230 rules" don't correspond to what the law actually says.

[JohnA]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

At least it explains why there are so many articles in the English site about the same malaise.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

That's true. The Internet is a gold mine of misinformation, lies and the ramblings of mentally disturbed people. I don't advocate shutting down Wikipedia as it would be like the magician's apprentice trying to stop the broom by cutting it into pieces with an axe - we know how that ended.

The way to beat Wikipedia is to produce a better encyclopedia that is free to use and quote, but not free to edit. And wikis are not the way to produce authoritative encyclopedias.

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval? I know that EB uses their own in-house software (which must be a study in itself). Is there something similar out there?

[anthony]

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval?

What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

[Peter Damian]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

[Guido den Broeder]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

I did not write or even edit that article, thanks. There used to be a fairly decent page at nl:Wikipedia.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

Ah, now we get to see where your disdain is coming from. You think that because you didn't have ME, others can't have it either, and that because you aren't an expert, others can't be. And there was a fair amount of literature on ME in de mid 1980's, btw. You must have missed it.

But you're just attempting to sidetrack because you were caught mispresenting the facts with regard to Wikisage.

That's the common way of making discussion on Wikipedia, but here we don't fall for it.

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that you are attempting to destroy Wikipedia."

They caught up fast. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How can one expect them to make good articles if they are checking WR all day long? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder:

[thekohser]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

And now we'll see the familiar process of a man "getting even" with those who blocked him, by generating an army of rotating-IP sockpuppets, whose discovery will only harden the Wikipediot resolve -- "He's an indefinitely blocked troll who is compounding his block by socking. Let us have a community ban vote, now!" Then he'll be community banned. Then maybe an appeal to ArbCom will be in order. We all know the drill.

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

[Cedric]

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

Indeed. If you think about it all again after gaining some distance, it becomes apparent that the thought patterns and actions of the reigning regime are rather predictable. That makes the task considerably easier.

[Basil]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

It was to be expected. I'm surprised it took so long. I don't understand why you insist on taking them on, head on? As SunZi wrote,

Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defence if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.

[dtobias]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

[Somey]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all...

Perhaps it could be interpreted as a "cry for help"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[The Joy]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

[Somey]

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

I guess he should have screamed for help instead...

[Guido den Broeder]

As we know from a recent movie, the mere announcement that Wikipedia will be destroyed, without ever taking a deliberate action towards it, could well be enough to make it happen.

All that is missing is a date. Shall we pick July 4, 2010 as the day of days?

[dtobias]

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

I guess he should have screamed for help instead...

Does the Supreme Court approve of yelling "Help!" in a crowded Wikipedia?

[sbrown]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

Thats nonsense. As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

[Malleus]

As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

It will cause a great deal more "sound and fury" if any other administrator is unwise enough to reverse it.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[RMHED]

My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

[Malleus]

My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

Do you want the short version or the slightly shorter version?

I'll give you the short version anyway. Jimmy Wales, and Larry of course, deserve credit for what their fledgling idea has become. You will no doubt interpret that simple comment negatively, but I mean it positively nevertheless. It is however true that his supreme powers are becoming a serious impediment to the project's further development and credibility.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[RMHED]

My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

Do you want the short version or the slightly shorter version?

I'll give you the short version anyway. Jimmy Wales, and Larry of course, deserve credit for what their fledgling idea has become. You will no doubt interpret that simple comment negatively, but I mean it positively nevertheless. It is however true that his supreme powers are becoming a serious impediment to the project's further development and credibility.

Jimmy isn't my best buddy at the moment, he finds it very difficult to answer a direct question, he prefers to hide behind false arguments built on artifice.

[Malleus]

Jimmy isn't my best buddy at the moment, he finds it very difficult to answer a direct question, he prefers to hide behind false arguments built on artifice.

No argument from me there.

[EricBarbour]

What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......

[Malleus]

What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......

Yep, the issues that ought to be addressed are rather plain to see for anyone who takes off their blinkers.

[EricBarbour]

Man, I have to hand it to Peter. His Wiki-must-be-destroyed bit has brought out
all kinds of insane twitching Wiki-scum. And they're duking it out here.

He isn't doing any of the destruction. He doesn't have to.
They're doing it for him.

As usual, these little shits are OPPOSED TO FREE SPEECH. Say something offwiki
they don't like, and they disrupt their OWN WIKI to "punish" you. Barking mad indeed.

Do these people have any idea how pathetic they look?

I wonder how much hard-drive space (that could be holding useful articles)
is being taken up by this endless posturing and blubbering. I wonder how many
articles, that these assholes could be improving, are going unimproved? While they
squabble over "teaching that bastard a lesson"?

And it is criminal that there is no page on Johann Andreas Streicher by the way. What are you all doing? Get to work. Peter Damian (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Apathetic]

I think Peter's action are having an effect!

This wiki has a problem

Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

[RMHED]

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh

When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

[JohnA]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

I did not write or even edit that article, thanks. There used to be a fairly decent page at nl:Wikipedia.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

Ah, now we get to see where your disdain is coming from. You think that because you didn't have ME, others can't have it either, and that because you aren't an expert, others can't be. And there was a fair amount of literature on ME in de mid 1980's, btw. You must have missed it.

But you're just attempting to sidetrack because you were caught mispresenting the facts with regard to Wikisage.

That's the common way of making discussion on Wikipedia, but here we don't fall for it.

I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.

[Guido den Broeder]

I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not ME.

You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

Nobody ever claimed it did, on both points.

I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.

You have chosen WR to do that. Obviously, on a wiki (other than WP) we wouldn't let you.

[Malleus]

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh

When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

This is of course the Timmeh currently presenting himself at RfA. If Peter Damien really wanted to destroy wikipedia he could do no better than support this candidate.

[Cedric]

Man, I have to hand it to Peter. His Wiki-must-be-destroyed bit has brought out
all kinds of insane twitching Wiki-scum. And they're duking it out here.

This wiki has a problem

No shit.

Do these people have any idea how pathetic they look?

Nope. Not clue one among the whole lot. I love it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Hasten The Day!™

[Rhindle]

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh

When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

This is of course the Timmeh currently presenting himself at RfA. If Peter Damien really wanted to destroy wikipedia he could do no better than support this candidate.

Timmeh!

[dtobias]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

Thats nonsense. As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

Greg is kind of more cagey, indirect, and ambiguous about his specific intentions, hinting at some sort of unstated agenda but not directly saying he intends on trying to destroy or damage Wikipedia, let alone giving a detailed list of methods by which he plans on accomplishing it. This was still enough to get him lots of loud opposition onwiki, with people squawking about "How dare they unban him?", but the ArbCom did it anyway. Saying explicitly that one's intent is to "utterly destroy" Wikipedia (even if it's totally ludicrous that the stated techniques would have any chance of doing so) is harder to defend.


This post has been edited by dtobias:

[A Horse With No Name]

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

...signifying nothing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[RMHED]

.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[thekohser]

Greg is kind of more cagey, indirect, and ambiguous about his specific intentions, hinting at some sort of unstated agenda but not directly saying he intends on trying to destroy or damage Wikipedia, let alone giving a detailed list of methods by which he plans on accomplishing it. This was still enough to get him lots of loud opposition onwiki, with people squawking about "How dare they unban him?", but the ArbCom did it anyway.

That's not bad, Dan. Good summary!

I will say this -- I have an ambition to "utterly remove" anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees and/or staff who does not exhibit above-average honesty and demonstrate above-average skill sets and experience in knowledge management systems.

I am admittedly bumbling my way toward that end, and I don't harbor any illusion that I will succeed, but there it is for you. If this little personal "project" of mine is a blockable or bannable offense, then depress that button on me, ArbCom!

Greg

[EricBarbour]

I will say this -- I have an ambition to "utterly remove" anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees and/or staff who does not exhibit above-average honesty and demonstrate above-average skill sets and experience in knowledge management systems.

A worthy and not unreasonable expectation.
You know....sort of like other institutions.......

The Wikimedia Foundation sets a new standard for incompetent hiring practices.
Instead of getting experienced and knowledgeable people, who
might possibly know something about databases and encyclopedias....

..........they get Brad Patrick and Essjay and SlimVirgin and David Gerard.

Think what someone like Mel Brooks would do with The Story Of Wikipedia.
Imagine a Broadway actor, playing Jimmy Wales and singing a song entitled
"If Only I Could Get Laid".

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[MZMcBride]

As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

[Malleus]

As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

I am quite consistent in my views, I recommend you try it sometime. You might also like to ponder on your rather revealing choice of the word "threatening".

[A Horse With No Name]

Think what someone like Mel Brooks would do with The Story Of Wikipedia.
Imagine a Broadway actor, playing Jimmy Wales and singing a song entitled
"If Only I Could Get Laid".

In all seriousness, that was a wail of one of Shankbone's blog postings -- considering he wasn't playing for laughs, it was a bit...well, you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[MZMcBride]

As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

I am quite consistent in my views, I recommend you try it sometime. You might also like to ponder on your rather revealing choice of the word "threatening".

You didn't answer the question.

[Somey]

You didn't answer the question.

Personally, I'd say he did answer the question, but he didn't want to come right out and accuse you of binary thinking. By the same token, if you weren't thinking in that fashion, you probably should have assumed that he would have made exceptions for people threatening acts of violence in the Real World, or other overtly harmful crimes.

All of this hinges on what society (as opposed to the WP community) would consider a "crime" with respect to anti-Wikipedia activity. I don't believe society has really decided that question, though I would imagine the justice system would not look kindly on someone firebombing or blowing up one of Wikimedia's server farms, for example.

However, I'd prefer to think that he was writing that somewhat metaphorically. Obviously he did use the terms "blown up" and "utterly destroy" though, which was perhaps unfortunate, because apparently a number of alarmists among the WP'ers took this to mean that he planned some sort of physically destructive act. Instead, what he really proposed, IMO, was in effect to bring on the inevitable Attrition Phase™ a few years sooner than it will actually occur.

As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

This whole episode strikes me as a bit silly, which sort of makes me wish I had thought of it first. (Though I suppose I did, in a way - it's just that at the time I didn't have Mr. Damian's standing as a "productive editor," so nobody really took it seriously.) The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.

Ironically, I myself am usually considered one of the more "reasonable" people here. I can assure you that this is just an act - I'd probably destroy the entire Web 2.0 edifice if I could, if I thought I could get away with it and do it without anyone being physically injured. This despite the fact that my livelihood practically depends on the internet.

[Peter Damian]

However, I'd prefer to think that he was writing that somewhat metaphorically. Obviously he did use the terms "blown up" and "utterly destroy" though, which was perhaps unfortunate, because apparently a number of alarmists among the WP'ers took this to mean that he planned some sort of physically destructive act. Instead, what he really proposed, IMO, was in effect to bring on the inevitable Attrition Phase™ a few years sooner than it will actually occur.

It's extremely silly. It's part of English humour to use hyperbole for humorous effect, and it obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously. There is a maxim that says you should never use irony or any other form of non-literal expression on the internet, in case people read you literally. Perhaps I should have taken that to heart.

All quite funny though.

"Americans think that life is serious but not hopeless. The English think that life is hopeless but not serious"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[JohnA]

I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not ME.

Sorry to burst yours, but you're not a medical doctor either. Nor have you seen my medical history.

You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

Nobody ever claimed it did, on both points.

Except wikisage. Oh I can read Dutch as well.

I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.

You have chosen WR to do that. Obviously, on a wiki (other than WP) we wouldn't let you.

I haven't made them out to be authoritative about a medical syndrome. You have. I've only made them authoritative about me.

Wikisage is all about you. The definitive guide to what obsesses Guido den Broeder.

[Guido den Broeder]

Oh I can read Dutch as well.

I doubt it. I don't think that you can read, period.

And by saying that I am being kind.

[JohnA]

Oh I can read Dutch as well.

I doubt it. I don't think that you can read, period.

And by saying that I am being kind.

Natuurlijk!

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

Make that 'institutionalized and without any network connection' ... although I can imagine them all sitting meditating together, like the Manson Family, taking over the minds of distance internet surfers in order to make edits on their behalf.

A bit like that old political maxim, "no one that wants to be a politician should be allowed to be a politician ", would this not cure the project in one ...

No one that wants to edit the Wikipedia, should be allowed to?

(IMG:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/3678275638_21058e0962_o.jpg)
Charles Manson takes the last word on the Wikipedia

[JohnA]

As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

Make that 'institutionalized and without any network connection' ... although I can imagine them all sitting meditating together, like the Manson Family, taking over the minds of distance internet surfers in order to make edits on their behalf.

A bit like that old political maxim, "no one that wants to be a politician should be allowed to be a politician ", would this not cure the project in one ...

That's the problem I have with Mediawiki is that there's no test of intelligence or scholarly ability to be able to use the software as an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has the worst of all models for scholarship. But where is the best?

[dtobias]

All of this hinges on what society (as opposed to the WP community) would consider a "crime" with respect to anti-Wikipedia activity.

Though, when the subject under discussion is how the Wikipedia community is, or should be, reacting to him, then the "inside" view from the perspective of the community might be seen as more relevant than what a little old lady in Pasadena might think.

The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.

And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.

[Guido den Broeder]

Currently, with Mediawiki. It has enough features and flexibility, one just needs to use them.

But we have discussed this already, JohnA.

[Gandoman]

One thing that has been shown first with Kurt, then with DougsTech and now with Peter Damian is that anyone who systematically opposes all RFAs for a reason perceived as "bad" will quickly end up blocked/banned. The punishment for doing this is much harsher than for edit-warring, POV pushing etc. I think the RFA community is very afraid of people doing this as it taps into the very weakness of the RFA model: that it is officially "not a vote", and therefore anyone can support or oppose for any reason they want, while in reality it is clearly a vote. Thus, while bureaucrats might disregard the "bad" oppose votes, they will nonetheless count towards the support percentage and possibly bring the RFA below the magical 70% mark.

This post has been edited by Gandoman:

[Peter Damian]

And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.

See 'Naturalistic fallacy' in any good reference work. (Preferably not Wikipedia).

[taiwopanfob]

The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.

And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.

BADSITES is not the only destabilizing, self-defeating policy at Wikipedia.

We can make this discussion much more clear if we step away from cult-think and draw a clean separation between theory and the implementation. The idea and the practice. Or, my favorite analogy, the "country" and "government".

I fully support the "country" of Wikipedia. May the database of content live forever.

However, like Peter Damian and others, I feel it is absolutely necessary to round up the current "government" of Wikipedia, take it out back and shoot it, then burn it's buildings to the ground, and salt it's earth. Out with the 'old' and demonstrably destructive kooks in charge today: install better management!

It is no irony at all that the long-term survival of Wikipedia probably depends on doing this.

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[MBisanz]

Peter, I have an analogy and I was wondering if you might agree that it is a fair analogy to your situation at RFA (and in general at WP).

In the United State, the Lion's Club is a famous volunteer organization best known for collecting and recycling used eye glasses for the visually impaired. Now one could argue that the money they put to setting up collection facilities, recycling the glasses, etc, would be better spent on treatments to improve the visually impaired's eyes (such as Lasik, cornea transplants, etc). Also, there is a slight risk that some of the frames collected will have structural defects from use and could in an accident harm the person.

If someone who held these concerns showed up at a Lion's Club meeting announcing they thought the Club should stop collecting eyeglasses and would work towards that goal, people probably would be skeptical of them. If at every meeting they led off with a motion to shut down the eye-glass collection program people probably would get annoyed with them. And when they started showing up at collection drives with a poster saying "Don't give to the Lion's club, do something worthwhile with your money", it would take an incredible amount of tolerance for the club not to show the person the door.

Now an alternate approach might to be showing up at meetings and suggesting the Club do a better job reviewing donations to make sure they are safe. If it didn't work the first week, coming back the second week with details of how people are harmed by defective glasses. Or motioning that a fund raising drive for cornea transplants be held. Maybe down the road it could become the dominant part of the Club's activities and people would see the person who first suggested it as a leader.

And yes, I'm fully aware the Lion's Clubs are run by adults whose names are known publicly and who do bear liability for their actions. I'm talking more here about concepts than the nitty gritty details.

[Peter Damian]

Peter, I have an analogy and I was wondering if you might agree that it is a fair analogy to your situation at RFA (and in general at WP).
[...]

There is much in what you say, MB. However, the analogy is not entirely accurate. What if the proposal meant that 90% of the Lion's club members couldn't help with this work, and would have to take up some other hobby instead? Then, I put it to you, the resistance to the ideas would rise above logic and reasonable argument and would reflect the vested interest of 90% of its members.

That is the real situation, I believe. Most of the activity on Wikipedia is vandals changing articles, and then vandal-fighters changing them back. It is an entirely pointless and futile activity and should end. But this would leave 90% of admins without a job (for I believe that most of them are incapable of serious editorial work). Not very popular.

Now I could give plenty of evidence that all the positive contributions to Wikipedia come from individuals who have an interest in a limited subject area. Because Wikipedia is accessible to millions of people globally, this means that pretty much all subject areas (with the exception of specialist academic areas like mine) get covered. It would therefore be perfectly possible to prevent IP's from editing, require registered accounts, and encourage these people to edit more.
But this would put the vandal fighting faction out of business.

Thus, your analogy I think is a little bit flawed, although thanks for suggesting it. There is much good in what you do in Wikipedia, MB.

[anthony]

What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.

I don't understand. You want it to be wide-open to any random net-loon? Because, if not, it's trivial to set it up so it's not. I mean, Citizendium did so, didn't they?

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.

Well, yeah, that'd be nice, but that's going beyond the request of "JohnA" for something which "produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval"

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.

Well, I was responding to a particular question posed by JohnA. I'm going to quote it just in case someone missed it:

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval?

I don't think he is "gonna leave it wide-open". Mediawiki is very flexible in this regard. And it's fairly easy to modify the source to make some additional changes if you want a particular editorial control.

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......

No argument with you there. Wikipedia is a horrible application of Mediawiki. But the particular question I was responding to wasn't referring to Wikipedia.

[GlassBeadGame]

To the extent that PD's project to "Destroy Wikipedia" was meant to generate discussion on Wikipedia centering on PD it has been a smashing success. To the extent that it was meant to destroy Wikipedia, not so much.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Yes, but surely the problem is that what is really being defended is not the Wikipedia, per se, but the addictive reward mechanism and whatever personal mental hooks keep the adherents involved in it as it is, e.g.

the sense of self-importance, the opportunity to act out, nationalistic agendas. Like someone wrote as I was posting, a raison d'etre for the vandal fighters who don't and can't actually write.

I mean ... where am I going to invest my neuroses if they take it all away from me!?!

Its obviously a wind up ... so what's the big deal. If folks are taking it serious, they really have to be nuts. Even the one's not yet past puberty.

What I would asking myself is why should I be bothered, or concerned enough, to want to fix or change it without being asked, paid for and or empowered to do so?

I can see a genuine 'public interest' in doing so, many public interests, but how great really are they in comparison to the other "evils" of our world?

Based on past records and other examples, is "joining them" (for no wages) and reasoned discussion likely to bear fruit? I doubt it. Its ruled and protected by a rabble.

So probably what others here are proposing (and, in a sense, the unrepresented persistent and genuine vandalism enacting) ... "trash it until it becomes so stigmatized that it has to be seen to change to survive" (the old "squeaky wheels get oiled" equation) is likely to be the quickest way forward. That genuine vandalism is partly a sign of culture's disrespect for it.

The investment of your suggest diplomatic approach would probably be better made to the big funders and financiers of the project. The trusts' trustees not the Mediwiki's. Your "eye glass" equation being based upon the pornography, the racism, the admin abuse, the waste of resources goodwill and so on.

There is no quicker way to grab anyone's attention that to take away or threaten their meal tickets.

Elsewhere on this forum, there was a review of financial accounts. The Wikipedia's accounting should include a review of all the waste time and energy the unpaid laborers. I suspect that is VAST and in that you see the real inefficiency of the current model.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Jon Awbrey]

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

But more than that, its maintenacity of its more egregious vandals gives it plausible awshucksability for suppressing all other forms of information or feedback that happen to make the lowest common redumbinator of the Cabble and the Rabble uncomfortable.

Jon Awbrey

[GlassBeadGame]

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

But more than that, its maintenacity of its more egregious vandals gives it plausible awshucksability for suppressing criticism or information that makes the lowest common redumbinator of the Cabble and the Rabble uncomfortable.

Jon Awbrey

My profundity detector is all a-tingle.

[anthony]

To the extent that PD's project to "Destroy Wikipedia" was meant to generate discussion on Wikipedia centering on PD it has been a smashing success. To the extent that it was meant to destroy Wikipedia, not so much.

The latter is the goal, the former is the means.

[A Horse With No Name]

One thing that has been shown first with Kurt, then with DougsTech and now with Peter Damian is that anyone who systematically opposes all RFAs for a reason perceived as "bad" will quickly end up blocked/banned. The punishment for doing this is much harsher than for edit-warring, POV pushing etc. I think the RFA community is very afraid of people doing this as it taps into the very weakness of the RFA model: that it is officially "not a vote", and therefore anyone can support or oppose for any reason they want, while in reality it is clearly a vote. Thus, while bureaucrats might disregard the "bad" oppose votes, they will nonetheless count towards the support percentage and possibly bring the RFA below the magical 70% mark.

No, the one thing this shows is that the people in the RfA sector (which, quite frankly, represents a sliver of the total Wikipedia "community") have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever.

Poor Kurt and Doug were positively hilarious -- I actually looked forward to whenever they popped out of their garbage cans to do their Oscar the Grouch shtick. I don't know if they were trying to be intentionally funny or if they were just aiming for irony -- or if they really were a pair of cranky kooks. So what? Sometimes a benign kook is needed to tell us that we're taking ourselves too seriously.

And who was furious with them? Hundreds and hundreds of people? No, just a tiny handful of shitheads with nothing better to do with their time and no way to vent their frustrations.

With Peter -- this teapot tempest really shows that the characters at Wikipedia need to turn off their computers and get a real life. This whole situation is a riot -- if Peter was an American equine, he'd win the Eclipse Award as Horse of the Year.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

I was thinking just along this line.

The vandals and the Hamster Hammer Game "admins" are probably operating out of dorm rooms right next door to each other ... they are on the same level. What you are saying is that it is the vandals that give the PoliceState its endorsement not "the community", empowering a certain type.

Hell, just like in reality it will reach such a level of "problem" that, rather than make the necessary changes, they will demand and create a paid for police force to deal with it.

I mean, why should volunteers have to give up their lives and police it for no money? Surely protecting "the community's" wealth is worth paying for?

[LaraLove]

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

[Malleus]

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

I think you need to hand out lots of drama tiaras, one to each of the clots who thought that Law's crazy block was a good idea.

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

I don't think there can be much doubt about that.

[Somey]

And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't....

On the contrary - it isn't odd or perverse at all, in fact it's to be expected. It's tragic, to be sure, given that the people expending all this effort in WP's defense aren't really getting what they'd like to believe they're getting, much less getting paid for it. But like you say, it's hardly surprising that people would behave this way when the thing they're addicted to is threatened, even metaphorically. If I gave folks the impression that I myself was surprised by it, I guess I'll just have to be more explicit about that in future, then.

Anyway, it's like the song says:

When you're unable to make the connection you know how vital it is
When something slips through your fingers you know how precious it is
And then you reach the point where you know
It's only your second skin...

[The Joy]

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

But didn't you contribute to said drama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=299551830

[Peter Damian]

I need to buy you a drama tiara.

I'd rather have one of those than a barnstar.

[LaraLove]

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

But didn't you contribute to said drama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=299551830

Yes. I said the drama should end, and thus contributed to the drama. Vicious cycle.

[A Horse With No Name]

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

[The Joy]

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

Oh, the irony! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Oppose I can accept a distant block, and I can accept early examples of poor judgement. But I cannot accept an inability to properly creare a simple aricle only seven months ago, and I cannot see adequate evidence that this editor properly understands what is and is not vandalism. And a reply to almost every oppose !vote is neither a positive nor an expected contribution from the applicant. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=299756042

Talk about brutal! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

No wonder there are fewer people running for RFA!

[Malleus]

No wonder there are fewer people running for RFA!

I see no shortage of lambs lining up for the slaughter.

[Juliancolton]

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

[Malleus]

I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

Never mind, I've got another half, so between us we'll outgun horsey.

[LaraLove]

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

Actually, allow me... to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag

Simply responding to concerns, which may be misinformed or out of context, is not badgering. It is a discussion, and whatever dimwits started the trend that candidates cannot participate in the discussion should be beaten with a cluestick. This has been the trend for quite a while now, though. I was labeled as "thin-skinned" (haahahahaha (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) because I responded to opposers in my RFA (November 2007) to make clarifications. It's just stupid.

And this guy actually got opposes based on lack of experience... five years and 10k edits isn't enough in 2009. I would have thought we'd get a few more years before breaking five-digit edit requirements.

As for your last question, horsey, I'd say some time before RFA #6.

[A Horse With No Name]

I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

Never mind, I've got another half, so between us we'll outgun horsey.

Hey, no one ever said horses were smart. If we were, we'd be the ones in the saddle! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Malleus]

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

[LaraLove]

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

tru.dat

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Another problem will soon arise, that in order to pass an admin RfC, any individual doing so will have to be utter characterless and conformal ... as well as having steer away from any of the regular conflicts that require brave and courageous moderation.

The result will not be the genius the project requires but a safe, bland and even fearful mediocrity.

Its a problem now existing in politics where in order to get any candidate through election they must pass the full scrutiny of the gutter press and any likely backstabbing intrigue from more informed sources. It does not count how brilliant one is. If they have "something" on you, you are dead in the water.

Of course, that is not to say the gentleman and ladies of the gutter presses are not intelligent, they very often are. Just that their audience and techniques are difference.

And I know which side I stand on.

[Peter Damian]

Peter, you get a horsey kiss [...]

Er, rather not but thanks for the offer. I'd rather have that drama tiara from Lara.

[Peter Damian]

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...96#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

Peter Damian
Ah, I was expecting someone would contact me soon about this. I provided, in my edit, a very brief summary of why I struck his vote, but I will elaborate.

Part of the job we do, as crats, is to analyze the rationales behind opposes and neutrals to see where consensus lies. We do give different weight to different rationales, and in a practical sense, the only difference between giving a vote no weight and physically striking a vote is striking the vote. This is possible because RFA is a discussion, where the real power of someone's oppose lies not in their physical vote but in the reasoning behind it.

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

When a person submits themselves to RFA, they deserve to be seen in the light of their contributions. They deserve to receive constructive criticism. They deserve to see what they have done right and what they need to work on. So when someone opposes with a reason that fails to give to the candidates the respect and the aforementioned rights that they deserve, how can we let that stand? We are an encyclopedia based off mutual respect and civility for each other. To what degree our mutual respect and civility as a community still stands is debatable, but this is the hope we look to build towards.

That said, I don't have a vendetta against Peter Damian. I wish him well, and I hope he continues to build content. If he even put so much as a reasonable rationale to show why Mikaey might not be a good admin, I would not have stricken the vote. But his wording, the internal message of his oppose, and the fact that he is basically getting away with it, I find to be astounding. As a bureaucrat, I feel it is a duty of mine to make sure that RFA is a place where the candidate can learn about themselves through the constructive criticism of others and that both sides may be civil and respectful when doing this. I had no choice but to be bold, and to do my duty, albeit in a more openly symbolic fashion that we are accustomed to doing. bibliomaniac15 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

One of the things I tell people who I nominate is that it will take a mighty hot personal attack to get me to comment once the RFA is opened, mainly for this exact reason.

It is interesting that in this case while the name is not a great choice, it doesn't seem that much more terrible than [[User:Appraiser]], [[User:Hit bull, win steak]], [[User:Law]], or [[User:Ice Cold Beer]], all of whom are current admins; but I suppose I am biased on such things since I was neutraled at both my enwiki and commons RFAs for having an annoying signature.

[JohnA]

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.

It doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not going away anywhere soon.

If and only if a better, more accessible encyclopedia comes along, will Wikipedia stagnate. The only way to "destroy" Wikipedia is to starve it of attention apart from the crazies that will always inhabit it.

The problem is that the new encyclopedia had better sort out the question of how to finance the hosting, development and bandwidth without which no competitor, no matter how worthy, will be able to last for long enough to challenge.

[MBisanz]

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.

My analogy was much better. Can we have a contest of analogies of Peter's relationship to Wikipedia? Maybe an Awards Center subform is needed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[A Horse With No Name]

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.

My analogy was much better. Can we have a contest of analogies of Peter's relationship to Wikipedia? Maybe an Awards Center subform is needed (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Hmmm...how about Peter is like George W. Bush at the start of the Iraq war -- destroying a country in order to rebuild it? Or is that a bit too much? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[LaraLove]

Peter, you get a horsey kiss [...]

Er, rather not but thanks for the offer. I'd rather have that drama tiara from Lara.

(IMG:http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/Floor14/dramatiara-1.jpg)

[LaraLove]

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...96#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

<snip>

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

<snip>

Emphasis is mine. It's unfortunate that a bureaucrat doesn't know that to negate an oppose, one needs three supports.

[Nerd]

I thought it was well-known RFA is a fucked-up twisted MMORPG? It is nothing but a game of getting to certain levels, avoiding enemies, making friends, getting points with DYKs, FAs etc, and through the RFA, behaving impeccably. It also involves weeks of preparation - anyone who had done their research before stepping into the ring would know only a fool argues with an opposer, regardless of the merits (or lack of them) of their comment.

[Malleus]

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...96#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

<snip>

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

<snip>

Emphasis is mine. It's unfortunate that a bureaucrat doesn't know that to negate an oppose, one needs three supports.

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Peter Damian]

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?

What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

[Malleus]

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?

What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Seems to me that most candidates are "unremarkable", it's almost a job requirement. Indeed, if you're "remarkable" you've only really got two chances at RfA: slim and none.

[Nerd]

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?

What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Seems to me that most candidates are "unremarkable", it's almost a job requirement. Indeed, if you're "remarkable" you've only really got two chances at RfA: slim and none.

Unless you're remarkably popular.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Its a way of sucking up in case they come back and bite your bum after they have 'admin powers' ... especially when you know you are going to need it. That rabid Korean nationalist editor, Caspian blue, has it down to a fine art.

Etiquette has it that, after passing, one has to go back and airkiss everyone that vote for you, hence a social debt incurred .... Manus Manum Lavat - Seneca.

Far better than oppose every RfA, Peter and the Damianite Popular Front should actually vocally support all and every RfA, telling the world how much they love the candidate, thereby building up a 5th Column within.

Personally I could not do it, as I don't like smelling of dick, but I'd say it works well on the Pee-dia. Then again, sincerity is not really required, is it? Just copy and paste old ones and make sure your name is near the top of the list each time.

I think I always made the mistake of not realizing how much of the right kind of sucking up was necessary. I had the naive idea that actually reading and working from academic papers, and spending time formating citations, was the right thing to do.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[emesee]

What did the big wiki ever do to you?

This post has been edited by emesee:

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

What did the big wiki ever do to you?

Pollution, mainly.

[Peter Damian]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

[A Horse With No Name]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.

[Peter Damian]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.

Don't understand.

[Eva Destruction]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.

Don't understand.

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".

[Peter Damian]

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".

But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...erns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Eva Destruction]

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".

But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...erns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.

Can't really see the logic in your "writing style isn't perfect" oppose, personally. (Ottava's, which is based on an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation and distortion, is a different kettle of fish if accurate.) Pretty much anyone writing on any subject produces a poorly-written first draft to start with – this is why publishers have copyeditors and proofreaders.

That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole ("arguably" because there is a plus side to doing it this way, in making the flaws visible for multiple people to correct), but opposing an individual on the basis of a flaw in the system makes less sense than Doug's "too many admins" or Kurt's "prima facie", which at least made clear why they thought the individual candidate would be a problem.

[Peter Damian]

Can't really see the logic in your "writing style isn't perfect" oppose, personally. (Ottava's, which is based on an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation and distortion, is a different kettle of fish if accurate.) Pretty much anyone writing on any subject produces a poorly-written first draft to start with – this is why publishers have copyeditors and proofreaders.

That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole ("arguably" because there is a plus side to doing it this way, in making the flaws visible for multiple people to correct), but opposing an individual on the basis of a flaw in the system makes less sense than Doug's "too many admins" or Kurt's "prima facie", which at least made clear why they thought the individual candidate would be a problem.

I wouldn't criticise for 'writing isn't perfect', but rather 'far from perfect'. This is very bad writing indeed, and it has all the hallmarks of writing that won't improve. Note I added a few more concerns on the talk page. There is a failure to grasp the logic of the English language (mixing abstract adjectives with concrete nouns, imperfect characterisation, misuse of tense, misunderstanding of flow, and so on).

Moreover this was claimed as a FA, I think (let me check).

"U.S. Route 50 in Nevada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."

And he claims so in his replies to questions.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

That really is one big problem ... too many of the (hyper)active components, the unpaid tools, can't write and can't recognize good writing when it replaces the schizoid chatter.

They don't have English as a first language. They are nowhere near academic or professional. They could not even write gutter press. They like it as shitty as they can make it on their topics. That is the best they can do. And if you dare try and change it, they go ballistic and start using all their pent up Wiki-guiles against you. It only takes two or three and all progress is screwed. And two of them do not even need to edit but just reverts or scweam for mummy to come and do something to the bad boys.

Years ago, I started editing by trying to copyedit topics that really did read like total and utter shite ... nothing contention. I had no partisan involvement on either side. Immediately, I had the harpies on me because I dared remove 3 of the 6 adjectives they had strung together, or the 5th repetition of the same allegation.

One of the most basic rules of good writing is not to say the same thing over and over again. Once really is enough and can have more impact, as does good copy.

"A topic on an atrocity does not have to be atrocious to make a point."

That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole

And, addressing that is one of the things that would fix it. Put all the garbage in the backroom behind a closed door where the search engines cant get to it, and only let the gift, skilled or professional deal with the front end.

I disagree slightly on the "there is a plus side to doing it this way" because really other major problem is all culties ... nationalists ... egotists ... and sex pervs that are attracted precisely because it gives them a well lit stage to act out there dramas. Left face it, encyclopedias should be boring. Accurate, well written, details but boring. There should not be any mistakes worthy of less than a Prof, Emeritus writing a polite letter to the editor.

God knows, in the old days, all we had to manage with were the anatomical line drawings of anuses and vaginas ... and to use our imagination to fill in the rest. The young people of today are fapping spoilt for choice now.

[LaraLove]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.

[Peter Damian]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.

No. As the man says above, a lot of disputes involve correction of poor style and sourcing. An admin who can't recognise the difference is not going to be very useful.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[MBisanz]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.

No. As the man says above, a lot of disputes involve correction of poor style and sourcing. An admin who can't recognise the difference is not going to be very useful.

I think you are confusing two concepts here Peter.

Based on your comments, and others, I gather that a main point of your oppose is that there are many admins who do not write any content and when they run into a content creator, are heavyhanded without taking into account their content creations when blocking.

You are saying this admin will not be "very useful". My question is: will he be harmful to your goals? A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.

[EricBarbour]

Sorry folks, I have to go with Peter on this gentleman.

Admittedly, WP needs more article authors to cover places like southwestern Utah. I've been there--it's some of the most beautiful country on earth, but it's also the back of nowhere. Even in the summer it doesn't get a lot of tourist traffic. (I'm assuming that "Davemeistermoab" actually lives in or near Moab. It's one of the most bizarre Western towns I've ever seen, btw, and its colorful history is difficult for people not living there to research properly.) If Dave wants to help Wikipedia soooo much, he should be writing content, not getting an admin bit and doing god-knows-what every day. And yeah, his writing is merely passable and not what I'd call "encyclopedia quality".

"Why does Moab, an isolated small town at the bottom of a Utah canyon, need a WP admin?" would be another good question for the RFA.

(PS, this is for anyone who thinks American Interstate highways are boring. Drive on I-70 across the San Rafael Swell. I guarantee that will change your mind. Very little traffic too. If you have time, use some of the lesser highways when crossing southern Utah, it's worth the effort to see some of that country.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Peter Damian]

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.

If an FA of that standard is difficult to achieve, that is a sorry state of affairs.

Based on your comments, and others, I gather that a main point of your oppose is that there are many admins who do not write any content and when they run into a content creator, are heavyhanded without taking into account their content creations when blocking.

No, not my point. They should take into account only the dispute. But if they cannot understand the basis of the dispute ...

[Kelly Martin]

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve.

Obtaining an FA demonstrates a keen grasp of wikipolitics, but says almost nothing as to the editor's competency as an encyclopedia article author.

[MBisanz]

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.

If an FA of that standard is difficult to achieve, that is a sorry state of affairs.

An FA of any standard is difficult to achieve for several reason:

1. It must be comprehensive - Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources and defining the scope of an article to include enough of the topic without being rambling trivia is a skill.
2. Adhering to the [[WP:MOS]] - There are 50 pages of style guidelines regulating everything from dashes to sections to interwiki links - Being able to create a long article that complies with all of these things requires a decent knowledge of how Wikipedia works.
3. Proper writing style - Even if you can mash together wikicode, passing FA means the article is "brilliant prose". This is not easy to achieve since there is a broad gap between simply accurate writing and engaging writing.

To show the leap an FA must take, I'll use an article I just wrote as an example: University Village, New York

1. Comprehensiveness - It covers everything I could find on the internet and I even used some closed news databases, but to actually research it to FA standards, I probably would need access to the Preservation Committee hearing minutes, NYU's archives, and probably a couple more architectural books. Weighing the time required to do that and the time required to simply get a half-decent article, I decided to do the latter.
2. MOS - I understand most of the MOS, but I'm sure I did not comply with [[WP:LEAD]] or the complex rules on sentences per section.
3. Style - It is readable and accurate, but I wouldn't call it engaging by a long shot, it would probably take an entire re-write by a new author to make it read less like a technical specification.

That is why I am impressed when someone can make an FA. While the topics may not be something I am interested in, I do appreciate the amount of time it took for them to gather the sources, write the article, make it comply with WP's style, and then take it through FAC. And I am speaking generally here, I've only glanced at this candidate and will be reviewing him further before deciding on my !vote.

[A Horse With No Name]

But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...erns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.

Petey honey, maybe in your mind you think you're making good arguments. But you forget that the majority of the RfA denizens see you as the heir to Kurt and DougsTech, not as the wise man on the mountaintop. You've already been at the center of a stirred shitpot with your "Oh, let's destroy Wikipedia!" crap. Do you really think people are going to take anything you say seriously?

Anything that's coming out of your mouth now is going to look like utter rot. Whether you are opposing Mr. Utah or John the Baptist or that unfunny Bloom kid or whatever cartoon character comes mop shopping, the constant "I oppose because..." is going to raise a groan of "Oh, shit, not him again!" from everyone except your very, very small circle of WR friends.

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That's not a bad idea, but why do you think that Iridescent wouldn't be better in the Barbara Windsor role?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources ...

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

The ripples of cognitive dissonance as the POV warriors are woken up to a new reality will probably cost you another of your sockpuppet accounts. It drives them wild. Why *should* they have to suffer the discomfort of leaving their Pee-Cee?

Of course, this goes hand on hand with the most important element of any "successful" editing career ... which is being wise enough to avoid any topics of contention and other psychoses magnets.

On a serious note, perhaps some expenditure the Foundation could incur would be institutional subscriptions to commercial digital libraries such as JSTOR, Ingenta and others. I have not thought this through, nor how access could be shared, but perhaps to a group of genuinely "established editors". It could be a carrot to offer to engage and reward genuine editors.

The ideal model would be where the serf classes are restricted solely to fact finding and reporting on talk pages (rather than talking and having dramas) using citation templates they have to fill in, and that editorial overseers be left to compose actual topic pages in a fairly homogenous style.

Which is actually a bit like encyclopedias actually work. Except the serfs get paid ...

[Jon Awbrey]

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

Back when some dipshit decided that the Wikipedia article on Exclusive Disjunction should be renamed to Exclusive Or, the proponents of the change did a Google search on the two alternatives as a part of their argument for most common name.

Think about it …

Or search WR for the old discussion …

As always, the Lowest Common Redumbinator of Popular Misconceit won out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[MBisanz]

Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources ...

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

The ripples of cognitive dissonance as the POV warriors are woken up to a new reality will probably cost you another of your sockpuppet accounts. It drives them wild. Why *should* they have to suffer the discomfort of leaving their Pee-Cee?

Of course, this goes hand on hand with the most important element of any "successful" editing career ... which is being wise enough to avoid any topics of contention and other psychoses magnets.

On a serious note, perhaps some expenditure the Foundation could incur would be institutional subscriptions to commercial digital libraries such as JSTOR, Ingenta and others. I have not thought this through, nor how access could be shared, but perhaps to a group of genuinely "established editors". It could be a carrot to offer to engage and reward genuine editors.

The ideal model would be where the serf classes are restricted solely to fact finding and reporting on talk pages (rather than talking and having dramas) using citation templates they have to fill in, and that editorial overseers be left to compose actual topic pages in a fairly homogenous style.

Which is actually a bit like encyclopedias actually work. Except the serfs get paid ...

When I wrote my senior thesis in college on the topic of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007, I found that a good amount of the research I needed for the paper involved transcripts from congressional hearings from the 1890s and 1910s which are only in a handful of major libraries in each state. Also, I found that another good portion of my paper dealt with material that only existed in the 5th circuit courthouse in Louisiana. So I went to the New York Public Library one day and dug through piles of old congressional hearings that were so old I could not photocopy them. Luckily I had surmised this and brought along my digital camera and was able to photograph the documents. For the 5th circuit materials I contacted the law librarian who graciously scanned the documents for me. For an aspect of the 10th circuit history in the midwest I ended up doing a phone interview with a lawyer in the region.

I am an average writer and despite spending a year working on the paper, expected to get the middle grade of "honors" from the thesis committee. After my defense to the department I was quite surprised to be granted high honors, with the comment from my adviser that the committee was most impressed with my use of non-digital sources since most senior theses these days are based almost entirely on material in digitized databases.

So I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder. When I later wrote another senior thesis on AT&T, I again returned to the paper books and AT&T archival documents I had collected over the years. I now have a nice crate in my garage of AT&T archival materials that is probably more complete than most college libraries.

But, if I was a professor reviewing a thesis, I would not expect to see non-digitized sources since I know such things are rarely referenced by contemporary students and that few if any of my colleagues would hold it against a student who used JStor or ProQuest based papers.

The point of this is that Wikipedia is similar. Some people are old-fashioned and use true archival materials from JStor, NYT pre-1980, etc, heck most of my articles are based primarily on old NYT's materials. But, I recognize that people can create an average article from web-only sources. And while the leap from average to brilliant may never occur, an average article on a random topic is still better to me than no article at all.

As to your second point of the nationalist disputes, I imagine it doesn't matter what type of sources are used, it would still be disputed. Many of these disputes pre-date the web and I don't think people could say "The Macedonia question is unequivocally resolved by this paper source", but rather "There are a range of viewpoints on paper sources about the Macedonia question".

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

Back when some dipshit decided that the Wikipedia article on Exclusive Disjunction should be renamed to Exclusive Or, the proponents of the change did a Google search on the two alternatives as a part of their argument for most common name.

Think about it …

Or search WR for the old discussion …

As always, the Lowest Common Redumbinator of Popular Misconceit won out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Not seeing an article at either of those links...

Anyway, I would have challenged such a move by citing the existence of the concept of Or as an unrelated polluter of Google results.

[Jon Awbrey]

Not seeing an article at either of those links …

Anyway, I would have challenged such a move by citing the existence of the concept of Or as an unrelated polluter of Google results.

Apparently no one has gotten around to making the redirects from the capitalized variants — like I'm gonna burn a pair of socks to do it for them … I don't think so …

BTDT — and you would have lost that argument to the usual horde of Iamnotanexpertbots …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Points taken and its not just limited to nationalist debates either ... but such work or papers deliver facts. And, as with academia, the purpose is not entirely about the subject at hand but about broadening general awareness and improving methodology.

The problem with contentious issues is that Google reflects the exaggerated contentions publishes on the internet. As Jon shows, the Wikipedia then reflects Google ... which seemingly sticks the Wikipedia at the top by default. My suspicious would be that fuels the bloggers to repeat views recursively, and I would suggest increasing narrow manner. Hence a few 'copied onto the internet' published sources become to be the dominant, if not only, ones and "received opinion". New, non-Googlized information received as a threat to the status quo.

If the refereeing admins level of English is as poor as the contestants ... you are screwed royally. Its your hours versus their squealing and backstabbing abilities. Why would anyone bother?

There is not a search algorithm for quality control or relevance.

[EricBarbour]

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

Yes. And you can read Arbcom member Cas Liber's response here.

Won't go through that again. Fuck them.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

That's not a bad idea, but why do you think that Iridescent wouldn't be better in the Barbara Windsor role?

That role goes to Flying Toaster. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Law]

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...stermoab#Oppose

It is fucked up. If you really want to enact change, you do it by drilling from the inside. I have most admiration for MF, OR, Giano, and several others who have such strong influence because they work within and work their way out.

Find a system that is flawed, become an integral part, and work to your aim from inside, not from outside. Despite what most might think, I am a huge proponent for those that break out from the inner circle and flourish.

Pissing and moaning is one thing, but like Jefferson, who despised all that was Christianity, fought for such secularism that even though he was in the minority, as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, he gained such a respect that his actions were admired, followed, and still studied as of this day.

If you want to break something, you have to be a cog.

[Peter Damian]

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner

[Law]

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner

so i removed the prod. reference it.

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner

so i removed the prod. reference it.

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help

This post has been edited by Law:

[Peter Damian]

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help

Thank you for putting the references there, but that was something I was half way through doing anyway. If I had removed that prod I would have been blocked or banned.

Thank you also for emailing me with the idea that in some way you are like me or used to be like me. In RL you have to be careful about remarks like this as people can often be offended by it.

Having looked at your 10,000 edits I can't see how in any way you are like me. Sorry if this seems rude. You blocked me last week, is that correct?

Yes correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3APeter+Damian

Also having looked at your previous user pages it is quite clear we have nothing to do with each other, given your interest in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofM...onchallenge2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Halloween

Also you have been identified as an 'Awesome Wikipedian' which in my book always means something very bad.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Cedric]

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve.

Obtaining an FA demonstrates a keen grasp of wikipolitics, but says almost nothing as to the editor's competency as an encyclopedia article author.

Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is a dedicated roadster. The roads sub-cabal ("WP:USRD") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as those roadsters who have incurred the wrath of Der Autobahnenfuehrer and his inner circle. As a roadster, he will be expected to follow the example of the glorious Autobahnenfuehrer and stick mostly to actions involving road articles, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.

[Juliancolton]

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help

Thank you for putting the references there, but that was something I was half way through doing anyway. If I had removed that prod I would have been blocked or banned.

Thank you also for emailing me with the idea that in some way you are like me or used to be like me. In RL you have to be careful about remarks like this as people can often be offended by it.

Having looked at your 10,000 edits I can't see how in any way you are like me. Sorry if this seems rude. You blocked me last week, is that correct?

Yes correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3APeter+Damian

Also having looked at your previous user pages it is quite clear we have nothing to do with each other, given your interest in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofM...onchallenge2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Halloween

Also you have been identified as an 'Awesome Wikipedian' which in my book always means something very bad.

Procedurally speaking, anybody can removed PRODs—even the article's creator.

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is a dedicated roadster. The roads sub-cabal ("WP:USRD") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as those roadsters who have incurred the wrath of Der Autobahnenfuehrer and his inner circle. As a roadster, he will be expected to follow the example of the glorious Autobahnenfuehrer and stick mostly to actions involving road articles, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.

While I wasn't specifically appraised of any of this, none of it surprises me. Wikipedia is teeming with cliques, cabals, interest groups, and power centers, and they are all constantly clashing one against another as each fights to present its favored content in the manner which most pleases its members.

What perpetually amuses me is the way that often very complex power relationships arise epiphenomenally out of this jumble, obviously without any overarching plan, but nonetheless with enough apparent structure for the conspiracists to allege a Vast Conspiracy which clearly doesn't exist.

Almost nobody at Wikipedia is dedicated to Wikipedia; virtually everyone there is dedicated to some other goal, and is only using Wikipedia as a means to accomplish it. Until you understand that, you will have no success in undermining Wikipedia.

[Newyorkbrad]

When I wrote my senior thesis in college on the topic of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007, I found that a good amount of the research I needed for the paper involved transcripts from congressional hearings from the 1890s and 1910s which are only in a handful of major libraries in each state. Also, I found that another good portion of my paper dealt with material that only existed in the 5th circuit courthouse in Louisiana. So I went to the New York Public Library one day and dug through piles of old congressional hearings that were so old I could not photocopy them. Luckily I had surmised this and brought along my digital camera and was able to photograph the documents. For the 5th circuit materials I contacted the law librarian who graciously scanned the documents for me. For an aspect of the 10th circuit history in the midwest I ended up doing a phone interview with a lawyer in the region.

What was the topic of the thesis? It sounds like something I'd be interested in. I assume you also used the CIS hearing sets on microfiche, or were those not accessible where you were?

[victim of censorship]

Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is a dedicated roadster. The roads sub-cabal ("WP:USRD") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as those roadsters who have incurred the wrath of Der Autobahnenfuehrer and his inner circle. As a roadster, he will be expected to follow the example of the glorious Autobahnenfuehrer and stick mostly to actions involving road articles, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.

While I wasn't specifically appraised of any of this, none of it surprises me. Wikipedia is teeming with cliques, cabals, interest groups, and power centers, and they are all constantly clashing one against another as each fights to present its favored content in the manner which most pleases its members.

What perpetually amuses me is the way that often very complex power relationships arise epiphenomenally (sic) out of this jumble, obviously without any overarching plan, but nonetheless with enough apparent structure for the conspiracists (sic) to allege a Vast Conspiracy which clearly doesn't exist.

Almost nobody at Wikipedia is dedicated to Wikipedia; virtually everyone there is dedicated to some other goal, and is only using Wikipedia as a means to accomplish it. Until you understand that, you will have no success in undermining Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

Welcome to Jimmys world of lies, dam lies, and Wikipedia.

[Eva Destruction]

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

But aside from that, how do you like it?

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

But aside from that, how do you like it?

I wish I could click my ruby slipper three times and say the words...

Wikipedia be gone... Wikipedia be gone... Wikipedia be gone...

And Wikipedia would disappear in to the ether.

But, I truly believe most people on Wikipedia are either of the followings class

Deluded and ignorant

The Evil

Either way, any one advocating or apologizing for Wikipedia is an enabler of the Swamp of Wikipedia and as such, is responsible for it's evil.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Either way, any one advocating or apologizing for Wikipedia is an enabler of the Swamp of Wikipedia and as such, is responsible for it's evil.

I'd like to enable her swamp, if you know what I mean.

(And if you do, please fill me in.)

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

I'll put that with "The anarchist project to fuck up human history".

[lolwut]

Gotta agree with this thread. TOW is full of bullshit.

Guys like Rodhullandemu... seriously, that guy strikes me as sad. Like he's terminally ill or something.

And the opposite, a young guy like Sceptre.

Both have one thing in common: Wikipedia addicts.

Fuck the Wikipedia ideology. It's shit.

[A Horse With No Name]

It is fucked up. If you really want to enact change, you do it by drilling from the inside. I have most admiration for MF, OR, Giano, and several others who have such strong influence because they work within and work their way out.

Find a system that is flawed, become an integral part, and work to your aim from inside, not from outside. Despite what most might think, I am a huge proponent for those that break out from the inner circle and flourish.

Pissing and moaning is one thing, but like Jefferson, who despised all that was Christianity, fought for such secularism that even though he was in the minority, as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, he gained such a respect that his actions were admired, followed, and still studied as of this day.

If you want to break something, you have to be a cog.

Gee, and I always thought you were a dope! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Of course, Peter doesn't get it. You cannot fix a system without actually fixing it. Making silly statements about "destroying" Wikipedia and then opposing every RfA (except for one sure-fire loser effort) isn't fixing anything. It adds to the drama and makes you look foolish. And what Law said is correct -- MF and company have influence, while Peter doesn't. Yeah, he blew the whistle on Flying Toaster, but so what? That was really a fluke, more than anything, and at the end of the day it did nothing to improve Wikipedia as a whole.

[LaraLove]

I skipped at least two pages, but I must say that opposing for this has to top the list of stupid reasons.

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

Peter, I can't write brilliant prose, so should I stop my BLP admin work and resign?

[Nerd]

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

You must know a different Ottava to the one I do then.

[Eva Destruction]

I skipped at least two pages, but I must say that opposing for this has to top the list of stupid reasons.

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

Peter, I can't write brilliant prose, so should I stop my BLP admin work and resign?

Go back and read my oppose. It's nothing to do with "inability to write brilliant prose", despite everyone lining up on the talkpage to claim it is; it's about falsifying sources. Definitely not the same thing.

[Nerd]

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve.

Obtaining an FA demonstrates a keen grasp of wikipolitics, but says almost nothing as to the editor's competency as an encyclopedia article author.

Yes, writing a FA shows nothing as to writing a brilliant article. It means it meets the approval of the cronies who hang out at FAC.

I skipped at least two pages, but I must say that opposing for this has to top the list of stupid reasons.

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

Peter, I can't write brilliant prose, so should I stop my BLP admin work and resign?

Go back and read my oppose. It's nothing to do with "inability to write brilliant prose", despite everyone lining up on the talkpage to claim it is; it's about falsifying sources. Definitely not the same thing.

She wasn't referring to your oppose; she addressed Peter. Unless your name is Peter?

[A Horse With No Name]

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

You must know a different Ottava to the one I do then.

I think he means "heavy" as in cumbersome, leaden, bloated...that kind of heavy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Nerd]

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

You must know a different Ottava to the one I do then.

I think he means "heavy" as in cumbersome, leaden, bloated...that kind of heavy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I referred to the "often talks sense" bit.

[Kelly Martin]

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

In a way this is an excluded-middle error. Peter, like many before him, has correctly identified one of Wikipedia's problems: administrators and other functionaries who are incapable of distinguishing good authorship from poor authorship. The proposed solution to this problem, however, is to require proof of authorial competence as a requirement for performing any nontrivial task, which is, of course, foolish. Typically when I see that solution presented it tells me that the advocate is upset mostly at the fact that people other than him have power; he puts forward the rule because it seems like a reasonable one to him (even though it clearly isn't reasonable) and it would decrease the number of people against which he would have to compete with power by excluding many people (but, importantly, not himself) from the competition.

Authorial competence doesn't equate to having the ability to recognize good authorship. It would be like requiring the janitors, receptionists, and HVAC technicians at an accounting firm to all be CPAs. You might want your janitors to know enough to recognize the sorts of documents that should not be thrown out lightly, and your receptionists to know enough about the business to be able to identify what department handles what sort of inquiry, but it's completely foolish to expect an encyclopedia to be staffed entirely by writers from top to bottom.

[EricBarbour]

Peter, I can't write brilliant prose, so should I stop my BLP admin work and resign?

Conrad Black writes very clever prose. Didn't keep him out of prison.

[Malleus]

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

In a way this is an excluded-middle error. Peter, like many before him, has correctly identified one of Wikipedia's problems: administrators and other functionaries who are incapable of distinguishing good authorship from poor authorship. The proposed solution to this problem, however, is to require proof of authorial competence as a requirement for performing any nontrivial task, which is, of course, foolish. Typically when I see that solution presented it tells me that the advocate is upset mostly at the fact that people other than him have power; he puts forward the rule because it seems like a reasonable one to him (even though it clearly isn't reasonable) and it would decrease the number of people against which he would have to compete with power by excluding many people (but, importantly, not himself) from the competition.

Authorial competence doesn't equate to having the ability to recognize good authorship. It would be like requiring the janitors, receptionists, and HVAC technicians at an accounting firm to all be CPAs. You might want your janitors to know enough to recognize the sorts of documents that should not be thrown out lightly, and your receptionists to know enough about the business to be able to identify what department handles what sort of inquiry, but it's completely foolish to expect an encyclopedia to be staffed entirely by writers from top to bottom.

That analogy makes a lot of sense, but in the wikipedia world the janitors and receptionists have the authority to expel the CPAs. That doesn't make sense, which is what I perceive to be at the heart of Peter's complaint.

I skipped at least two pages, but I must say that opposing for this has to top the list of stupid reasons.

There is a shitton of admin work to be done, and the ability to write brilliant prose should not be a requirement for it. How utterly ridiculous.

Peter, I can't write brilliant prose, so should I stop my BLP admin work and resign?

Let me ask you a question Lara. Who was the last established editor you blocked just for being "uncivil"? If the answer is something like "I can't remember", as I suspect it probably is, then you can keep all your bits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It is fucked up. If you really want to enact change, you do it by drilling from the inside. I have most admiration for MF, OR, Giano, and several others who have such strong influence because they work within and work their way out.

I'm flattered that you think I have any influence, but I don't see it myself.

My view for some time now has simply been to fix as much as I reasonably can before I'm booted out. Then I'll go do something else.

[A Horse With No Name]

It is fucked up. If you really want to enact change, you do it by drilling from the inside. I have most admiration for MF, OR, Giano, and several others who have such strong influence because they work within and work their way out.

I'm flattered that you think I have any influence, but I don't see it myself.

My view for some time now has simply been to fix as much as I reasonably can before I'm booted out. Then I'll go do something else.

Actually, Malley baby, Law is spot on. If someone like you, OR or Giano gets blocked, there is an immediate hue and cry.

That's not because you guys are cute and have tons of teenage girls as fans (though inside sources tell me Giano is quite the Italian hunk). You guys are influential as content creators and opinion makers -- even if the content is a bit wobbly and the opinions make Ayn Rand look sane. Nonetheless, you stand out, whether you want to admit it or not. And for better or worse, you are bringing about the intellectual change that Peter is unable to achieve with "let's destroy Wikipedia."

Guys like Rodhullandemu... seriously, that guy strikes me as sad. Like he's terminally ill or something.

And the opposite, a young guy like Sceptre.

Both have one thing in common: Wikipedia addicts.

Fuck the Wikipedia ideology. It's shit.

So, you are really six-foot-four?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[JohnA]

While I wasn't specifically appraised of any of this, none of it surprises me. Wikipedia is teeming with cliques, cabals, interest groups, and power centers, and they are all constantly clashing one against another as each fights to present its favored content in the manner which most pleases its members.

What perpetually amuses me is the way that often very complex power relationships arise epiphenomenally out of this jumble, obviously without any overarching plan, but nonetheless with enough apparent structure for the conspiracists to allege a Vast Conspiracy which clearly doesn't exist.

Almost nobody at Wikipedia is dedicated to Wikipedia; virtually everyone there is dedicated to some other goal, and is only using Wikipedia as a means to accomplish it. Until you understand that, you will have no success in undermining Wikipedia.

No shit, Sherlock.

Next week on Wikipedia Review, Kelly Martin will express shock that bears actually defecate in woods, and finds herself horrifed that the Pope is indeed a Catholic.

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[JayT]

Actually, Malley baby, Law is spot on. If someone like you, OR or Giano gets blocked, there is an immediate hue and cry.

That's not because you guys are cute and have tons of teenage girls as fans (though inside sources tell me Giano is quite the Italian hunk). You guys are influential as content creators and opinion makers -- even if the content is a bit wobbly and the opinions make Ayn Rand look sane. Nonetheless, you stand out, whether you want to admit it or not. And for better or worse, you are bringing about the intellectual change that Peter is unable to achieve with "let's destroy Wikipedia."

If Ottava Rima's an influential opinion maker, why is he so often on the losing side of his screaming matches?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Procedurally speaking, anybody can removed PRODs—even the article's creator.

PRODs, and a heap of other similar tags, are so often used as ignorant slaps in the face, and incitements, from individuals who obvious know fuck all about the subject but desperately need to being seen to do something "worthy" to justify their existence, and up their score when they go for the RfC. For someone that does actually know something about a subject, and is sitting composing and referencing work (especially a newcomer), they are highly unsettling.

As Peter says, if removed, the tag artist is almost guaranteed to become irate and start slapping 3RRs, ban threats and all sorts of other trash vandalism on one's user page in order to start building up a case against you ... and as Peter has (Caspian blue (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) up his ass, that would have been far more than likely.

This is precisely one of the modus operandis of 'Ass-pain glue', a fetid turd that knows she will never become an admin and so gears up longer term attacks knowing that any new, uninvolved or young admin that come along (perhaps one she voted on in a RfC) will just look at all her smearing and kneejerk against the other party. She seeks to win by demoralization, supported by existing admin allies that she has perviously succoured.

I do not know how much pleasure Richard Gere actually got from having a hamster stuck up his ass (cue:Urban legend warning) but crossing edits with her is more like having a rabid, scabulous porcupine stuck up your darkness. A porcupine that likes the taste and smell of being up other people's asses, and is well practised at it. I have never seen any invest so much time and energy sucking up and contriving admin complaints ... except for some cult members attempting to whitewash their cult's topic.

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

... and Caspian blue.

On one hand, I think a few of them are just too stupid and short-sighted to see the damage such behavior does to the project (putting off informed editors forever) - because they truly have no stakeholding in it or liability towards it ; on the other hand, others are actually skillful and enjoy doing ... your psychopathic element. If it was run like a business with customers, instead of living off trust funds, these idiots would be out the door and unemployed on their first day.

I use "psychopathic" in the technical use of the term as, "individuals who gain satisfaction from antisocial behavior, have a lack remorse for their actions and an inability to empathize with others feelings.

[Milton Roe]

Authorial competence doesn't equate to having the ability to recognize good authorship. It would be like requiring the janitors, receptionists, and HVAC technicians at an accounting firm to all be CPAs. You might want your janitors to know enough to recognize the sorts of documents that should not be thrown out lightly, and your receptionists to know enough about the business to be able to identify what department handles what sort of inquiry, but it's completely foolish to expect an encyclopedia to be staffed entirely by writers from top to bottom.

Good point, but ever the problem is people who don't know what they don't know. In a well-functioning organization the secretaries don't try to do the surgery or synthetic chemistry or car repair-- and (god help them if they try) the chemists and surgeons and mechanics don't try to do the secretarial work.

At Wikipedia, the problem is the "administrator" is given the keys to kingdom and all but encouraged to stick their nose into anything that particularly interests them, and permission to screw around with it. That's a recipe for disaster.

It's like having the highway patrol pull you over, make you open your briefcase, and say: "That equation looks wrong to me. Either show me your cite or delete it." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

"I didn't know you were a quantum physicist, officer."

"What my background is, is none of your buisness. That's why I wear the clownmask."

"What was your badge number, again?"

"Are you tring to get arrested?"

"Where did you go to school again?"

"Okay this is stalking, and you're trying to violate my executive privacy, so off to jail you go..."

[LaraLove]

Let me ask you a question Lara. Who was the last established editor you blocked just for being "uncivil"? If the answer is something like "I can't remember", as I suspect it probably is, then you can keep all your bits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't recall having ever blocked anyone for incivility... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I haven't.

So does this mean I get to keep mah naughty bits, too? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Actually, Malley baby, Law is spot on. If someone like you, OR or Giano gets blocked, there is an immediate hue and cry.

That's not because you guys are cute and have tons of teenage girls as fans (though inside sources tell me Giano is quite the Italian hunk). You guys are influential as content creators and opinion makers -- even if the content is a bit wobbly and the opinions make Ayn Rand look sane. Nonetheless, you stand out, whether you want to admit it or not. And for better or worse, you are bringing about the intellectual change that Peter is unable to achieve with "let's destroy Wikipedia."

If Ottava Rima's an influential opinion maker, why is he so often on the losing side of his screaming matches?

Excellent question. I was not aware of OR's status as "influential opinion maker". Of course, I also wasn't aware that him being blocked elicits an outcry. Shows how much I pay attention.

[A Horse With No Name]

If Ottava Rima's an influential opinion maker, why is he so often on the losing side of his screaming matches?

Because he influences people to come out and say something, instead of just sitting around banging Huggle or voting for their IRC friends in RfA. When OR talks, people listen and respond -- whether they agree is another matter.

If he had no influence whatsoever, he would've been harassed off the site, a la DougsTech or NYScholar.

[Law]

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help

Thank you for putting the references there, but that was something I was half way through doing anyway. If I had removed that prod I would have been blocked or banned.

Thank you also for emailing me with the idea that in some way you are like me or used to be like me. In RL you have to be careful about remarks like this as people can often be offended by it.

Having looked at your 10,000 edits I can't see how in any way you are like me. Sorry if this seems rude. You blocked me last week, is that correct?

Yes correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...%3APeter+Damian

Also having looked at your previous user pages it is quite clear we have nothing to do with each other, given your interest in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofM...onchallenge2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Halloween

Also you have been identified as an 'Awesome Wikipedian' which in my book always means something very bad.

I did block you. That is no secret. I also spent time helping to save an article you wrote. The same article you brought to light here because you felt it was in distress.

I didn't assert I 'used' to be like you - that type of rhetoric can be very condescending. I certainly would not insult anyone by attempting to insinuate that I had somehow evolved. Perhaps you are more evolved than I. I emailed you because I was attempting to convey that I have been at wits end as well. If I got the wrong impression, than I was incorrect. I assume we all ended up on WP randomly. It's very odd to me that a social culture, unlike FB or MySpace, is built on an arbitrary need to build a reference book. However, seeing as Google unfortunately points to WP all too often, perhaps the need is explained. I certainly had no aspirations as a child to help build an encyclopedia, an atlas, nor an almanac.

I have no idea why I'm an awesome Wikipedian - it makes a good userbox, however, as I tend to take things lightly.

Let me ask you a question Lara. Who was the last established editor you blocked just for being "uncivil"? If the answer is something like "I can't remember", as I suspect it probably is, then you can keep all your bits. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't recall having ever blocked anyone for incivility... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I haven't.

So does this mean I get to keep mah naughty bits, too? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Actually, Malley baby, Law is spot on. If someone like you, OR or Giano gets blocked, there is an immediate hue and cry.

That's not because you guys are cute and have tons of teenage girls as fans (though inside sources tell me Giano is quite the Italian hunk). You guys are influential as content creators and opinion makers -- even if the content is a bit wobbly and the opinions make Ayn Rand look sane. Nonetheless, you stand out, whether you want to admit it or not. And for better or worse, you are bringing about the intellectual change that Peter is unable to achieve with "let's destroy Wikipedia."

If Ottava Rima's an influential opinion maker, why is he so often on the losing side of his screaming matches?

Excellent question. I was not aware of OR's status as "influential opinion maker". Of course, I also wasn't aware that him being blocked elicits an outcry. Shows how much I pay attention.

I don't think that OR is influential as an opinion maker. I think he is an influential editor. There is a difference. I cannot think of a single WP editor who can stand alone as an influential opinion maker. The most respected Wikipedians seem to be those who actually do no more than appease the crowd in an attempt to de-escalate situations. I'd rather see heightened concerns play out without the mediation or comments about civility or 'getting back to work.' It seems that brushing problems under the carpet earns a barnstar far too often.

[Peter Damian]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'. That is a description used by my detractors to belittle my complaint. My complaint is about writing which betrays lack of thinking and logic. Brilliant prose is not the same thing as clear, logical and well-thought writing (e.g. Finnegan's Wake is supposedly brilliant prose, but it is not clear thinking, far from it). I don't want someone who cannot think clearly making judgments about what I write on the project, e.g. slapping PRODs on me or making a judgment involving PRODs, or reverting my edits as vandalism. The same applies to the BLP issue, judgments about which require clear and effective thinking, and a certain knowledge of the real world.

2. If there were a fundamental separation between those who deal with obvious vandals and the like, and those who deal with established editors, it would be different. Then there would be no need for admin candidates to be asked about article writing, role in content creation and so on. But then Wikipedia would have to accept the existence of a class of editors with rights fundamentally different from those of ordinary accounts.

[...] in the wikipedia world the janitors and receptionists have the authority to expel the CPAs. That doesn't make sense, which is what I perceive to be at the heart of Peter's complaint.

Absolutely. The difficulty is to make this point in Wikipedia world without being accused of 'elitism' or 'cabalism' or some other such nonsense.

[MZMcBride]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

[Peter Damian]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

The thread was to discuss 'ideas' about destroying it. No intention to destroy it was expressed (if you read carefully).

[Nerd]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

The thread was to discuss 'ideas' about destroying it. No intention to destroy it was expressed (if you read carefully).

I read "the place should be blown up and destroyed" as wanting to destroy it. Maybe I'm taking your words as they are, rather than some metaphor for something else.

[Peter Damian]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

The thread was to discuss 'ideas' about destroying it. No intention to destroy it was expressed (if you read carefully).

I read "the place should be blown up and destroyed" as wanting to destroy it. Maybe I'm taking your words as they are, rather than some metaphor for something else.

Perhaps you should learn to read obvious metaphor for what it is. Also read the context, which suggests irony?

[JohnA]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

Topics started by Peter Damien tend to spiral rather quickly to Peter Damien's pathological desire to edit Wikipedia. There's nothing more to be said.

[LaraLove]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'.

Well, I think that says it all.

As for the rest of your first point, none of those require adminship other than actually deleting the article after the PROD expires; but you can contest a PROD, so bitching about those is sort of stupid.

[thekohser]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'.

Well, I think that says it all.

Man, Lara, I wish I would have wroten that!

[Milton Roe]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'.

Well, I think that says it all.

Man, Lara, I wish I would have wroten that!

Don't need no brilliant prose-i-cation
Ain't never need to work that hard
We jis wants fights and No Education
We likes it just the way it are...

Billy Jimboel

[Malleus]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'.

Well, I think that says it all.

Man, Lara, I wish I would have wroten that!

That seems perilously close to one of those fabled wikipedia "personal attacks" to me. "I'm an idiot, I can barely read, much less spell, but I should be an administrator because everyone knows I'm a jolly decent person, and anyway, I've jumped through all the hoops so gimme the prize."

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

Topics started by Peter Damien tend to spiral rather quickly to Peter Damien's pathological desire to edit Wikipedia. There's nothing more to be said.

There's lots more to be said actually, but probably you wouldn't be able to hear it.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Law]

What happened to trying to destroy Wikipedia?

The thread was to discuss 'ideas' about destroying it. No intention to destroy it was expressed (if you read carefully).

I read "the place should be blown up and destroyed" as wanting to destroy it. Maybe I'm taking your words as they are, rather than some metaphor for something else.

Perhaps you should learn to read obvious metaphor for what it is. Also read the context, which suggests irony?

Metaphor is a clever writing tool. You outlined a plan to actually 'destroy' wikipedia. Unlike an analogy, you laid out a clear and concise plan.

You had an article you wrote that was Prodded. I helped. you asserted here, which I randomly found that my edits were useless. I sourced your article. I didn't edit it. You also chose to blank it and take your ball and go home? You know that articles need to be sourced. You know that blanking and assertion that it is moved to wikipediareview doesn't stop the article from existing on wiki.

You KNOW all these things, yet you must continue to do such as to press buttons. What exactly did you expect? I extended an olive branch by spending my own time to unPROD an article you wrote, coupled with actually sourcing it. I saved it.

In return, you assert that my edits were worthless. You continue to oppose with no rationale, and when asked, you cry plagiarism. All the shit I took from my block seems to go away each time you insist that you are a contributor, while at the same time, bringing concerns here, instead of the article talk page. You are creating articles with no sources, and opposing with no opinions, knowing full well it will attract attention to your actions.

You cannot have it both ways. You either want to contribute according to the rules that were applicable when you SIGNED UP, or you don't. Now, you just appear to crave attention. I may be the first to indef you, but at the rate you are going, you simply make my action look justified. Statistically, your time is limited on WP. your actions are nothing but tests.

Normally I would find testing WP to a healthy thing, just as one should challenge authority. However, you are just at that point where you do shit simply to gain sympathy, and I have a strong feeling that you won't find it here nor on WP. Like I said before, enact change from within. But your fans are dropping like flies because I fear that you really have no idea how to go about enacting change because you are not sure what you really want. You are more likely an addict to contributing, but you just can't stop. It's easy. Log out. Once you do that, meditate on the idea of no longer being a content contributor and only then can you have some credibility as far as what really needs to change.

I cannot offer any more help, which I have done. You cannot play both sides, which you are doing.

[Peter Damian]

A lot of stuff above. Replying to the main points:

1. As I've said before, it is not about the ability to wrote 'brilliant prose'.

Well, I think that says it all.

Well it doesn't, because you omitted the next statement, which was about the ability to use thinking and logic.

[Peter Damian]

You are creating articles with no sources, and opposing with no opinions, knowing full well it will attract attention to your actions.

How wrong. I was about to put the sources in - the complete article is now here

http://wikipediareview.com/Directory:Logic_Museu...lotheus_Boehner

and 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice. You should know this, given I have been contributing to Wikipedia for 6 years and pay great attention and care to the matter of sourcing.

[LaraLove]

[...] 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice.

You know PRODs don't expire for seven days, right?

[Peter Damian]

[...] 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice.

You know PRODs don't expire for seven days, right?

I don't really care about what rule or regulation it is. I see it as a silly and off-putting insult that has been pasted onto the article I am working on, without any thought or judgment.

[Nerd]

[...] 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice.

You know PRODs don't expire for seven days, right?

I don't really care about what rule or regulation it is. I see it as a silly and off-putting insult that has been pasted onto the article I am working on, without any thought or judgment.

Reminds me of your opposes on RFA.

[Peter Damian]

Reminds me of your opposes on RFA.

No the opposes are based on careful investigation of the contributions made by the candidate, unlike the PRODs. It may seem as though I am opposing every single candidacy, but not so.

Indeed if you look at Skomorokh's application, you will see I have struck through my oppose for now. More investigation needed.

My problem with Skomorokh are the same as my problems with Wikipedia. He is popular because he panders to the interests of those who should obviously and instantly be blocked.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

Indeed if you look at Skomorokh's application, you will see I have struck through my oppose for now. More investigation needed.

Congratulations!

[Peter Damian]

Indeed if you look at Skomorokh's application, you will see I have struck through my oppose for now. More investigation needed.

Congratulations!

I don't understand. Why 'congratulations'?

[LaraLove]

[...] 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice.

You know PRODs don't expire for seven days, right?

I don't really care about what rule or regulation it is. I see it as a silly and off-putting insult that has been pasted onto the article I am working on, without any thought or judgment.

For as long as you've been on the project, and considering your opening of this "hyperbolic" thread, I think you began that unreferenced article in the main space with the intention of it being tagged for deletion, so you could come here and bitch about it. Make a big dramatic stink, because that's what you do. You thrive on drama. You know damn well articles should be referenced. You had them, you say! So stfu and put them in the article. You could, as you very well know, start the article in a subpage of your own user space and then move it when it's ready. But no, you wanna bitch about a new page patroller doing his job, which you do not value.

Well, guess what, Peter; not everyone values the job of the loudmouth, arrogant SOB either.

[A Horse With No Name]

Indeed if you look at Skomorokh's application, you will see I have struck through my oppose for now. More investigation needed.

Investigation...of what? Secret service agents don't go through this kind of vetting before they get hired.

RfA in general has turned into such a ridiculous shambles, and you're not helping the process, Petey. Just take it for what it is -- a popularity contest.

Update on the Julian RfB: Newyorkbrad showed up to voice his support for our wee hero. Brad cautioned Julian to go easy on his editing, citing a fear of a burnout. Julian responded by jumping into his red Corvette, lighting a cigarette, swigging a big gulp of Jim Daniels and driving off while yelling, "Live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse!" Obviously, somewhere between WikiProject Hurricanes and Requests for Bureacrats, Julian packed on a few years. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

[...] swigging a big gulp of Jim Daniels [...]

My drink of choice.

[Peter Damian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[Peter Damian]

[...] 3 minutes into the article I get a 'PROD' notice.

You know PRODs don't expire for seven days, right?

I don't really care about what rule or regulation it is. I see it as a silly and off-putting insult that has been pasted onto the article I am working on, without any thought or judgment.

For as long as you've been on the project, and considering your opening of this "hyperbolic" thread, I think you began that unreferenced article in the main space with the intention of it being tagged for deletion, so you could come here and bitch about it. Make a big dramatic stink, because that's what you do. You thrive on drama. You know damn well articles should be referenced. You had them, you say! So stfu and put them in the article. You could, as you very well know, start the article in a subpage of your own user space and then move it when it's ready. But no, you wanna bitch about a new page patroller doing his job, which you do not value.

Well, guess what, Peter; not everyone values the job of the loudmouth, arrogant SOB either.

Not true! The Boehner article began when someone tried to remove a link to a 13th century text I had placed on the net

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=297663755

This reminded me that important reference was missing from the article, which I supplied here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300364846

I then looked for the article on Boehner, thinking there must be one as he is a well-known medievalist, and found none. So I created the article. Please note the chronology. THREE MINUTES into the article the PROD appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300393830

I then lost my temper and the rest is history. So please take back those remarks. The thing was not planned. Wikipedia being what it is, drama naturally just happens. I don't see how you can defend the new page patroller. The article clearly stated "Boehner moved to Saint Bonaventure College (now a university) where he lectured on Franciscan philosophy, and it was here that he began to build the Franciscan Institute into a centre of international Franciscan scholarship." - it is clear from the contents that the subject is notable, even if you don't know he was also a distinguished scholar.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A Horse With No Name]

I then lost my temper and the rest is history.

Yeah, what else is new? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LaraLove]

Not true! The Boehner article began when someone tried to remove a link to a 13th century text I had placed on the net

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=297663755

This reminded me that important reference was missing from the article, which I supplied here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300364846

I then looked for the article on Boehner, thinking there must be one as he is a well-known medievalist, and found none. So I created the article. Please note the chronology. THREE MINUTES into the article the PROD appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300393830

I then lost my temper and the rest is history. So please take back those remarks. The thing was not planned. Wikipedia being what it is, drama naturally just happens. I don't see how you can defend the new page patroller. The article clearly stated "Boehner moved to Saint Bonaventure College (now a university) where he lectured on Franciscan philosophy, and it was here that he began to build the Franciscan Institute into a centre of international Franciscan scholarship." - it is clear from the contents that the subject is notable, even if you don't know he was also a distinguished scholar.

Take back my opinion?

Look, Peter, this is what the template reads: If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. You're contending that notability was asserted so the PROD was inappropriate. That's not true. Because notability had been asserted CSD was not appropriate. Because notability had not been established, PROD was appropriate. All you had to do was remove the template with an edit summary of something like "I'm a long-established content editor and sources are forthcoming" or anything similar.

Collegial atmosphere or whatever the hell it is they say. You have to realize the way new page patrol works. I, too, had to have this explained to me at one point, because NPP has never been my thing. So many people get insulted that their article gets tagged within minutes of creation for not having references or not asserting notability, or whatever... they wonder "Why not give me some more time before tagging it?" The article creation page is a log that is constantly updated, just like new changes. Running through them, when you see an article that fails to meet policy, you either tag it right then, or you skip and it lose it. You can't expect them to watchlist all these pages and then go back an hour later and look at the progress. This is why the PROD template is removable by the author. It picks up the crap articles people drop by to dump off while fairly politely reminding everyone else to bring the article up to standards lest it be deleted in a week.

Same thing with CSD and the {{hangon}} template. If you're actively working on the article, you'll catch the CSD template, add {{hangon}} and get on with improving it, done. Your expectations are too high, and your arrogance does you no favors.

[Peter Damian]

Take back my opinion?

You said I did this deliberately and for the sake of drama.

[LaraLove]

Take back my opinion?

You said I did this deliberately and for the sake of drama.

I think you began that unreferenced article in the main space with the intention of it being tagged for deletion...

Emphasis added. That, sir, is an opinion.

[A Horse With No Name]

Emphasis added. That, sir, is an opinion.

Sir? I didn't know Petey was knighted. Wow.

So...what's the Queen really like? And is Prince Philip as funny in person as he is on TV? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Somey]

Look, Peter, this is what the template reads: If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. You're contending that notability was asserted so the PROD was inappropriate. That's not true. Because notability had been asserted CSD was not appropriate. Because notability had not been established, PROD was appropriate. All you had to do was remove the template with an edit summary of something like "I'm a long-established content editor and sources are forthcoming" or anything similar.

That might be a valid position if the tag was added after 24 hours, but not after three minutes. Three minutes clearly suggests confrontationalism - which, admittedly, is probably deserved from the WP perspective, given Peter's recent statements and activities. But to suggest it's "no big deal" seems more than a little disingenuous. They're clearing trying to railroad him using the classic procedure, luring him into a "civility violation" at which point they can ban him with less fear of reprisal.

I'm not entirely sure who "they" are specifically, not having followed his exploits all that closely, but let's face it, most of these people and situations are essentially interchangeable.

[Juliancolton]

Look, Peter, this is what the template reads: If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. You're contending that notability was asserted so the PROD was inappropriate. That's not true. Because notability had been asserted CSD was not appropriate. Because notability had not been established, PROD was appropriate. All you had to do was remove the template with an edit summary of something like "I'm a long-established content editor and sources are forthcoming" or anything similar.

That might be a valid position if the tag was added after 24 hours, but not after three minutes. Three minutes clearly suggests confrontationalism - which, admittedly, is probably deserved from the WP perspective, given Peter's recent statements and activities. But to suggest it's "no big deal" seems more than a little disingenuous. They're clearing trying to railroad him using the classic procedure, luring him into a "civility violation" at which point they can ban him with less fear of reprisal.

I'm not entirely sure who "they" are specifically, not having followed his exploits all that closely, but let's face it, most of these people and situations are essentially interchangeable.

I've found that new page patrollers can be a bit tag-happy, but perhaps rightly so. The backlog is almost always increasing, so one needs to be efficient I suppose.

[LaraLove]

Look, Peter, this is what the template reads: If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. You're contending that notability was asserted so the PROD was inappropriate. That's not true. Because notability had been asserted CSD was not appropriate. Because notability had not been established, PROD was appropriate. All you had to do was remove the template with an edit summary of something like "I'm a long-established content editor and sources are forthcoming" or anything similar.

That might be a valid position if the tag was added after 24 hours, but not after three minutes. Three minutes clearly suggests confrontationalism - which, admittedly, is probably deserved from the WP perspective, given Peter's recent statements and activities. But to suggest it's "no big deal" seems more than a little disingenuous. They're clearing trying to railroad him using the classic procedure, luring him into a "civility violation" at which point they can ban him with less fear of reprisal.

I'm not entirely sure who "they" are specifically, not having followed his exploits all that closely, but let's face it, most of these people and situations are essentially interchangeable.

Didn't I just explain this? I think you missed the paragraph that followed. When I was writing Hogettes, it got tagged with either CSD or PROD. I don't remember now. Were these same people out to get me, too?

[Apathetic]

I've found that new page patrollers can be a bit tag-happy, but perhaps rightly so. The backlog is almost always increasing, so one needs to be efficient I suppose.

New page patrollers are supposed to patrol the new pages starting at the bottom of the first page.

However, in actual practice, I find people patrol from the top and race to be the first to tag.

[A Horse With No Name]

I've found that new page patrollers can be a bit tag-happy, but perhaps rightly so. The backlog is almost always increasing, so one needs to be efficient I suppose.

Those happy taggers always get fried by SoWhy in RfA, too. I can imagine SoWhy sitting at home in Munich, going over the sloppy tags and yelling, "Vas ich wrong viv zese im-be-ceels? Dunkopfs!!" (That's my SoWhy imitation...I also do a mean Jimmy Cagney.)

[Nerd]

I've found that new page patrollers can be a bit tag-happy, but perhaps rightly so. The backlog is almost always increasing, so one needs to be efficient I suppose.

Those happy taggers always get fried by SoWhy in RfA, too. I can imagine SoWhy sitting at home in Munich, going over the sloppy tags and yelling, "Vas ich wrong viv zese im-be-ceels? Dunkopfs!!" (That's my SoWhy imitation...I also do a mean Jimmy Cagney.)

That's how I picture most people who obsess over deletion (SoWhy, DGG, Balloonman, A Nobody etc). Spending hours trawling through edits, desperate to find a mistake somewhere so they can oppose the candidate. Very sad indeed.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I've found that new page patrollers can be a bit tag-happy, but perhaps rightly so. The backlog is almost always increasing, so one needs to be efficient I suppose.

Surely that is a job for a script which, for example, waits 24 hours, checks if there are 3 ref tags or more, and if not, slaps a discrete tag on the author's page and then, if ignored, the topic page? Why does it need a human monkey to perform it? They have no more discretion and are infinitely more prone to failure.

I concur with Peter and Somey on this one ... and the English Pee-dia is by no means the worst. Its definitely "Whack-the-Gopher" territory. What makes it even more frustrating than being forced into a tag fight with 14 year old admins when one is trying to create not just an article but also a framework for related articles etc, is the amount of clearly unreferenced tosh splashed all over the Pee-dia, especially on relatively ancient pages, that no one is checking or removing.

I recently faced such a dickhead on a non-English wiki who was further using oversight (the ability to make deletions without your username being displayed) to hide behind. I was newly joined. It was clear that I was working on the topic ... Within about 15 minutes of having joined the Wiki, he was escalating the argument to accuse and ban me on the basis of being a 'Single-purpose account' in order to "win". I had just joined!

If intelligence is beyond them, and they could not see what a discouragement it might be to new editors, do these children not know the words of 'politeness' and 'tact'?

This is the problem where there is no accountability or liability in the system for such assholes. If it was real life, and a business, the business would fail or they would lose their job.

[Kelly Martin]

Many of the functions currently performed by Wikipedia's patrolgnomes could be performed equally well, or even better, by bots.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

When I was writing Hogettes, it got tagged with either CSD or PROD. I don't remember now. Were these same people out to get me, too?

Ha. It was that sad old Limey Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) who slapped a note saying ...

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

Hopelessly confused. Link between history & origin is tenuous. Actual notability vague.

That's nice and welcoming.

12 old men wearing skirts and pig's noses raise $100m dollars for kid's charity and it is non-notable!?!

[Guido den Broeder]

Bots might write better articles in many instances as well.

[JohnA]

Clearly selecting an article only 3 minutes old for deletion on the grounds of "notability" (and this on Wikipedia which has tedious articles on every railway station in Japan) was designed to enrage Peter Damien (and it worked)

Its clear Wikipedia is trying to tell you something Peter. Why can you not hear it?

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[Somey]

Didn't I just explain this? I think you missed the paragraph that followed. When I was writing Hogettes, it got tagged with either CSD or PROD. I don't remember now. Were these same people out to get me, too?

Probably, though it wasn't the same people. User:Rodhullandemu was out to get just about everyone, in fact... Have you seen that guy?

The article creation page is a log that is constantly updated, just like new changes. Running through them, when you see an article that fails to meet policy, you either tag it right then, or you skip and it lose it. You can't expect them to watchlist all these pages and then go back an hour later and look at the progress.

I suppose this is true, and a good point, and yes, Peter shouldn't be making a big deal over this. Still... Is this situation getting worse, better, or has it always been like this? It seems to me that as user attrition increases, this particular function will be one of the hardest-hit. The number of people trying to add "crap," "vanitycruft," and other nasty-ass pages to WP will only increase, and that number will include everyone who has tried and failed in the past. If they don't come up with a means of automating some of this, or putting tighter controls on new page creation, eventually they'll be swamped, right?