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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> "The Wikipedia Blues"
EricBarbour
post Mon 24th May 2010, 7:54pm
Post #1


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Yet another expert in an obscure field (alternative music keyboards) has fallen afoul of Wiki-Crazy-Time.

The Wikipedia Blues by Ken Rushton.

The Jim Plamondon BLP was tagged by that lovely sweet creature, Fram. Even though references abound.

The Peter Davies article will be more difficult, admittedly. Even though Davies is famous in the UK for his custom guitar work, he's not Googly enough for Kool-Aiders.

I've already told Ken that he's not alone, but that the only way to save those articles is to involve the even-crazier ARS. Feel free to send Ken your commiserations.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 24th May 2010, 8:25pm
Post #2


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 24th May 2010, 3:54pm) *

I've already told Ken that he's not alone, but that the only way to save those articles is to involve the even-crazier ARS.


Silly Rabbit!

The only way to save those articles is to put them somewhere besides Wikipedia.

Jon dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
milowent
post Tue 25th May 2010, 4:58am
Post #3


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 12th May 2010, 12:55am
Member No.: 20,085

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 24th May 2010, 8:54pm) *
I've already told Ken that he's not alone, but that the only way to save those articles is to involve the even-crazier ARS. Feel free to send Ken your commiserations.
so are you saying its good or bad that his articles were hacked away at? sounds like his primary purpose was to use wikipedia to post "original research" as the lingo goes. i mean, he bemoans not being able to cite his own blog on wikipedia.

that being said, its quite common for articles on actually notable subjects to get prodded and/or sent to AfD because the nom. doesn't know what he doesn't know, and doesn't care to know.

This post has been edited by milowent: Tue 25th May 2010, 5:02am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Tue 25th May 2010, 5:15am
Post #4


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(milowent @ Tue 25th May 2010, 4:58am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 24th May 2010, 8:54pm) *
I've already told Ken that he's not alone, but that the only way to save those articles is to involve the even-crazier ARS. Feel free to send Ken your commiserations.
so are you saying its good or bad that his articles were hacked away at? sounds like his primary purpose was to use wikipedia to post "original research" as the lingo goes. i mean, he bemoans not being able to cite his own blog on wikipedia.

that being said, its quite common for articles on actually notable subjects to get prodded and/or sent to AfD because the nom. doesn't know what he doesn't know, and doesn't care to know.


The truth is Wikipedia is a lawless domain, and with out the means to regulate itself in any fundamental way. Wikipedia, instead is the home of pedophiles, social misfits and other petty power drunk sociopaths - a wild west of roving gangs of basement dwelling cretins, like your self.

What wikipedia is, is a cesspool of misinformation.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 25th May 2010, 10:24am
Post #5


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 25th May 2010, 1:15am) *
The truth is Wikipedia is a lawless domain, and without the means to regulate itself in any fundamental way.

Yes. Full stop.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
milowent
post Tue 25th May 2010, 11:54am
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 12th May 2010, 12:55am
Member No.: 20,085

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 25th May 2010, 6:15am) *

The truth is Wikipedia is a lawless domain, and with out the means to regulate itself in any fundamental way. Wikipedia, instead is the home of pedophiles, social misfits and other petty power drunk sociopaths - a wild west of roving gangs of basement dwelling cretins, like your self.


so, its a reflection of the real world then. it regulates itself by social pressure, cultural norms, and underlying vague threats of force.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Tue 25th May 2010, 12:15pm
Post #7


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(milowent @ Tue 25th May 2010, 7:54am) *

so, its a reflection of the real world then. it regulates itself by social pressure, cultural norms, and underlying vague threats of force.


It is a carnival funhouse mirror reflection. dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 25th May 2010, 12:23pm
Post #8


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



There is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that WP has any recognizable form of self-regulation. The evidence that I'm aware of is that the governance model of Wikipedia corresponds to the way primitive tribal cultures operated prior to the advent of the Rule of Law, some 4000 years ago.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Tue 25th May 2010, 4:45pm
Post #9


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,868
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 24th May 2010, 3:54pm) *

Yet another expert in an obscure field (alternative music keyboards) has fallen afoul of Wiki-Crazy-Time.

The Wikipedia Blues by Ken Rushton.

The Jim Plamondon BLP was tagged by that lovely sweet creature, Fram. Even though references abound.

The Peter Davies article will be more difficult, admittedly. Even though Davies is famous in the UK for his custom guitar work, he's not Googly enough for Kool-Aiders.

I've already told Ken that he's not alone, but that the only way to save those articles is to involve the even-crazier ARS. Feel free to send Ken your commiserations.


Encyc will take the keyboard articles but not the BLPs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
milowent
post Tue 25th May 2010, 11:25pm
Post #10


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 12th May 2010, 12:55am
Member No.: 20,085

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 25th May 2010, 1:23pm) *

There is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that WP has any recognizable form of self-regulation. The evidence that I'm aware of is that the governance model of Wikipedia corresponds to the way primitive tribal cultures operated prior to the advent of the Rule of Law, some 4000 years ago.


what about all this consensus stuff and the rules and policies and guidelines and such? its a friggin cacophony of rules and regulations! and just like a real world government the rules are enforced haphazardly and inconsistently. in the real world we have oil platforms explode and mine disasters as a result. on wikipedia we have crappy articles and some porn.

i would suggest that for a primarily volunteer organization, wikipedia isn't that badly run. (heresy?)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Tue 25th May 2010, 11:55pm
Post #11


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

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(milowent @ Tue 25th May 2010, 4:25pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 25th May 2010, 1:23pm) *

There is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that WP has any recognizable form of self-regulation. The evidence that I'm aware of is that the governance model of Wikipedia corresponds to the way primitive tribal cultures operated prior to the advent of the Rule of Law, some 4000 years ago.


what about all this consensus stuff and the rules and policies and guidelines and such? its a friggin cacophony of rules and regulations! and just like a real world government the rules are enforced haphazardly and inconsistently. in the real world we have oil platforms explode and mine disasters as a result. on wikipedia we have crappy articles and some porn.

i would suggest that for a primarily volunteer organization, wikipedia isn't that badly run. (heresy?)

Yes. WP exists in the virtual world where many of the worst oil platform explosions can be fixed with a mouse click-- and a lot of "oil slick," too. And yet WP still sucks on the matter of privacy invasion and defamation of living persons, since the one thing that can't be done with a mouse click or server reboot, is clean up personal information, once it's out.

That being true, you would think, therefore, that WP would focus on defamation and privacy, as its worst potential vehicle to cause harm in "meat-space." It doesn't. I see little sign that it even comprehends the various gradiations in problems it can cause, and damage it can do.

So, no, WP is in many ways not that well-run for a private organization. Some of it seems fairly good-- the servers and programming are "down" a lot less than I'd expect for a server farm of its size. But the basic core policies and amount of evil WP does, is more or less in proportion to its ability to DO evil, which isn't saying much for WP. WP can't blow up an oil rig or bring down a space shuttle-- and it doesn't. Big deal! It CAN act as a propaganda and business advertising site that warps values on the net, and it does that. It can also cause personal harm to people who get stopped in customs or have others thinks badly of them after "looking them up" in Wikipedia. It doesn't have to do that sort of stupid and silly thing to people, but it does anyway. It lacks any ethics or notion of the golden rule. As a busness, its morals are totally childish and selfish. It does not exist to serve its readers, but rather its writers and (even more so) its volunteer administrators, directors, and paid executive employees, who run it for fun and profit, not for the public good.

Sorry. unhappy.gif I wish it weren't so. Wikipedia could freely choose not to be a tabloid-amplifier. But that would be less fun. And possbily less profitable, though we cannot say for sure on the last, since they've never tried it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
milowent
post Thu 27th May 2010, 4:08am
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 12th May 2010, 12:55am
Member No.: 20,085

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 26th May 2010, 12:55am) *
... And yet WP still sucks on the matter of privacy invasion and defamation of living persons, since the one thing that can't be done with a mouse click or server reboot, is clean up personal information, once it's out.

That being true, you would think, therefore, that WP would focus on defamation and privacy, as its worst potential vehicle to cause harm in "meat-space." It doesn't. I see little sign that it even comprehends the various gradiations in problems it can cause, and damage it can do.


seigenthaler was 5 years ago and the only people who seem to think about it anymore are wikipedians (or ex-wikipedians). i barely remember hearing about it at the time (when i was only an occasional user and not an editor). i really think most editors don't think about these issues, and since wikipedia is immune from defamation suits, nothing is going to change drastically unless the law does, i would think.

bad BLPs can be a problem area. it effects few very people as a % of content, but its critical to those it effects.

But i think that as a primarily volunteer organization, wikipedia is fairly astounding, and amazingly popular. people know things on it can be wrong, but rely on it for billions of things daily.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 27th May 2010, 4:22am
Post #13


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Yah, it's an astounding way for adolescents to learn, by direct experience, the bloody lessons of 4000 years of political history.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 10 17, 11:47pm