My Wikipedia Year Options

[Jonny Cache]

Hello, I'm Jonny Cache. That's right, you all know me, I walk the line. It started as a joke and just gets funnier all the time.

But seriously, folks, I don't really know who any of you are or what you're really about -- for all I know you could be a dozen times more wiked by far than the wikipatricians you criticize, for all I know you could be a yet another wikerwork duckblind that a host of wikiputian myrmidons is hiding behind. Don't worry about convincing me one way or the other right now -- by your harvest the world shall know you, all in good time.

But I can appreciate the apparent fact that you apparently saw this apparent need for a critique of wikipedic reason, or to put it more wikiprecisely, a citizen review board to maintain civilian custody of what is qwikly becoming a wikipolice state. So I consider it my civic duty to the larger society in which we all really live to help you become an effective and respected body of critical reflectors, not only on the clear and present state of wikipedia but on the spate of all pretentious encyclements of human knowledge that we are no doubt likely to see from here and now on.

To be continued ...

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

You see, the thing that I have come to have against Wikipedia is not just that it dissed me personally, but that it disses all of the things that I have learned to care about in the ways of education, information, and inquiry.

And the personal turining point came for me, not merely when I saw the damage that its gangs of vandals and brownshirtpuppets could wreak on articles and policies that had taken months of conscientious dialogue to work out.

No, I understand about fascists -- that is to say, their actions are consistent with their motives. They are trying to make the world safe for their peculiar form of ignorance. And they act in conformity with achieving that end.

No, the critical moment came for me when I saw the secret sympathy and the sheer symbiosis that all of the rest of those mealy-mouthed mock-menschen maintained with these devolutionary degenerates. The critical light dawned on me when I saw the way that these "goodfolk doing nothing" piously turned a blind eye -- and even winked at times -- perhaps spying some mirage of short-term advantage to themselves, but altogether oblivious to the day when these clockwork orangemen would turn on them.

Tic ...

Toc ...

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

OK, So WAS 4.250 said nice things about you, SV trashed you, and Guy lost patience. And it's all over the discussion of "What is truth?" Is this moreless the issue?

[Jonny Cache]

OK, So WAS 4.250 said nice things about you, SV trashed you, and Guy lost patience. And it's all over the discussion of "What is truth?" Is this moreless the issue?

The events are so painful to recount that I continually avoid recounting them. But I would not trouble this Review with their ilk if continuing observations had not proved them to be generic occurrences, indeed, quintessentially typical instances of how Wikipedia really operates.

There were several turning points in my Wikipedia Year -- each time I did what sensible folk should always do, namely, take a substantial vacation, sans computer, and each time I came back with a fresh outlook, more determined to accomplish something positive, only to be met with the same expectoration.

But the first big disappointment came after a period of a couple of months when a dedicated group of editors had been carefully and respectfully working through each and every wrangle on the Truth article, and I was beginning to think that something truly fine was being accomplished, in the dimensions of content and community both.

That all came crashing down one day in May of 2006 -- I will check the diffs later and amend the data if necessary -- when User:Nathan Ladd came back after a few months absence and immediately started trashing all of the work that had gone before.

I made valiant attempts to accomodate his perspectives, creating whole new sections of the article for the purpose, but nothing short of slash and burn and scorched earth would satsify him.

Simple soul that I was at the time, I expected the group of editors that had been working together over the previous couple of months -- some of whom I had worked with on several related articles and even defended their pet articles in Afd proceedings -- to rise against the mass destruction of hard won content.

But no.

Most of you are smiling at my naivete, so I will leave you to what little pleasure you may derive from this Sad Sack Story and return later on.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

Two comments by Fred Bauder on the Wikilawering/Talk page are worth reviewing


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=74254163

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=74326991

the first is

"under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow agreed upon wikipedia policies." No misunderstanding. We are obligated to follow agreed on Wikipedia policies.

these comments related in anyway to your case?

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Jonny Cache]

Two comments by Fred Bauder on the Wikilawering/Talk page are worth reviewing

'Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74328574&oldid=74326991'

'Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74326991&oldid=74254163'

the first is

"under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow agreed upon wikipedia policies". No misunderstanding. We are obligated to follow agreed on Wikipedia policies.

these comments related in anyway to your case?

Not everything is an Arbcom case.

My experience with the lower rungs of the Celestial Hire-Arrggghhhhy would not find me climbing such a riggedy old shamrackle ladder to clean the debris from that or any other gutter.

There is such a thing as the judgment of common sense. And there needs no court of law nor long litigation to tell us that the Wikipedia community follows neither the letter nor the spirit of its loudly, all too loudly espoused policies.

Case closed.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

My experience with the lower rungs of the Celestial Hire-Arrggghhhhy...

David Gerard isn't exactly on the lower rungs; he's quite openminded,

It's clear no-one except Jon thinks this is a problem. The floor is now open to him to actually convince anyone else....

next follows up his effort to avoid groupthink with a psychic prediction,

I think it's trivially obvious to predict how the conflict between Jon's ideals and the workings of Wikipedia will eventually be resolved...

hmmm, anyone join in the concensus you building after this....

Incidentally, did you know that Wikipedia "represents the productive/constructive use of groupthink". Constructive/productive, whichever; it is after all collaboration. And for a more insightful meaning of the term, see the very next edit: a whole section added, "Iraq war and Bush Adminstration Groupthink".

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Jonny Cache]

As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.

Let us see if we can reach an understanding about this one fact:

• Wikipedia will not be tried in its own courts.

Wikipedia can find itself blameless all it wants, in its own imagination, but it will be the outside world and the court of reality that has the ultimate say.

Do these wikipeckerheads naturally seek to know the facts, whether anybody forces them to it or not? That will be what determines whether they find themselves in accord with the judgment of the outside world and the court of reality.

I know what I have observed, and I know where my bets are placed at the present time.

Let the chips fall where they may.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

Let's not discount a Wikipedia version of Perestroika, i.e. in absense of real reform an effort to recycle the same old garbage. And actually Wikipedia is ahead of us with learning disabilities here at WR:

Section 230: At the Gates between Liability for Harmful Speech and Wikipedia

It appears the Foundation's legal issues have thus far fallen under the Research Department, and this explains why they've been neglected. A Legal Department is now being given more focus, and the search for a General Counsel is now underway.

[Jonny Cache]

Let's not discount a Wikipedia version of Perestroika, i.e. in absense of real reform an effort to recycle the same old garbage. And actually Wikipedia is ahead of us with learning disabilities here at WR:

Section 230: At the Gates between Liability for Harmful Speech and Wikipedia

It appears the Foundation's legal issues have thus far fallen under the Research Department, and this explains why they've been neglected. A Legal Department is now being given more focus, and the search for a General Counsel is now underway.

No doubt Enron had lotsa lawyers, too.

But you can't make an Endrun around reality.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[nobs]

As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.

I read the damning evidence; never mind. (Disclaimer: David Gerard did not foster a spirit of groupthink in that discussion, which may have been implied)

Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...

That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?

Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Jonny Cache]

As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.

I read the daming evidence; never mind. (Disclaimer: David Gerard did not foster a spirit of groupthink in that discussion, which may have been implied)

Well, there is no evidence, since there was no offense. Not sure what you read, but I'm guessing that what you read are statements, whose factuality or conformity with policy nobody bothered to check. But that is just the Wikipedia Way, de facto speaking.

If yer wondering about de jure -- it's still out.

Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...

That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?

Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?

I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.

Maybe it's anonymous?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[nobs]

Not sure what you read

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=72441977

If yer wondering about de jure -- it's still out.

Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...

That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?

Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?

I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.

Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to ( a ) hear the criticism of others ( b ) respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Somey]

Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to ( a ) hear the criticism of others ( b ) respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".

So what's your excuse, Nobs?