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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikipedia: A Threat To Civil Society, No More Monsieur Nice Guy
Rating  3
Jonny Cache
post Tue 18th September 2007, 5:38pm
Post #1


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways.

And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain.

In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose.

Jon Awbrey


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 18th September 2007, 6:49pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SqueakBox
post Tue 18th September 2007, 6:56pm
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 10:37pm
Member No.: 1,202

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 5:38pm) *

No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways.

And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain.

In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose.

Jon Awbrey


I look forward to that as any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome, Squeak ph34r.gif Box
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Tue 18th September 2007, 7:10pm
Post #3


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It is probably easiest for me if I begin with the thoughts that woke me up at 5 o'clock this morning, evidently prompted by my previous night's reading of the evidence presented by SlimVirgin re the Request for Arbitration re what Wikipediots like to call Attack Sites, which thoughts I was consequently moved to try and share with that body on that page, submitting them under the authorship of Name Redacted. That attempt was abended by the usual crowd of Free Speech Abenders, but some trains of thought can be difficult to stop once they get their momentum going, so let me bring it all home to the Rounders of the Roundhouse here.

Evidence presented by Name Redacted

I have never spoken in one of these proceedings before, so I hope that you will forgive me if I do not know the details of protocol. I am hopeful also that you will be patient with me as I make my sometimes faltering attempts to say my peace. I will try to state my observations plainly and simply. My critics tell me that I sometimes succeed, but it usually takes me several trials to do so. I have inserted my comments at this place because I want to begin by commenting on some of the points raised just above by SlimVirgin. I have to go to the dentist in a little while, but it looks like I have a half an hour, and I will be back later today. Name Redacted 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I will need to make a few bird's-eye-view observations first, filling in the details later. I believe that the issue of badsites is really just a symptom of a deeper issue that is not being fully addressed in the Wikipedia community. I believe that facing the deeper issue is critical to the future viability of Wikipedia. I suppose everybody says that, but I honestly believe it. Name Redacted 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary questions

SlimVirgin mentions a number of issues that I think are in need of further clarification among the Wikipedian user community before it will be possible to make fair and principled decisions about external links and references. One of these issues concerns the scope of Wikipedian policies like those about Neutrality, Reliability, and Verifiability. The question is, do these policies apply only to article content, or do they apply also to discussion and policy pages like this one? I do not know the answer, and it is my impression that many editors and administrators are confused about this, which is why I am asking the question. Name Redacted 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unhealthy trends

To be continued …

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 25th September 2007, 2:02pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Tue 18th September 2007, 7:36pm
Post #4


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SqueakBox @ Tue 18th September 2007, 2:56pm) *

I look forward to that as any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome, Squeak ph34r.gif Box


Here? Yes, it is welcome.
There? [expletive deleted].

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 18th September 2007, 7:38pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 18th September 2007, 8:53pm
Post #5


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???

If that's your sock, it's brilliant!

If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!

So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??

(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Tue 18th September 2007, 9:10pm
Post #6


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 4:53pm) *

Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???

If that's your sock, it's brilliant!

If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!

So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??

(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)


I neither confirm nor deny my authority over any authorship that I do not personally authorize.

But thanks for the occasion to say that — I've been working on it for months.

Jon Awbrey
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
the fieryangel
post Tue 18th September 2007, 9:14pm
Post #7


the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined: Tue 21st Nov 2006, 9:49pm
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 9:10pm) *

QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 4:53pm) *

Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???

If that's your sock, it's brilliant!

If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!

So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??

(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)


I neither confirm nor deny my authority over any authorship that I do not personally authorize.

But thanks for the occasion to say that — I've been working on it for months.

Jon Awbrey


If this whole point of this is to be able to say "No more Monsieur Nice Guy", you've got a standing ovation over here!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Tue 18th September 2007, 9:26pm
Post #8


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 5:14pm) *

If this whole point of this is to be able to say "No More Monsieur Nice Guy", you've got a standing ovation over here!


Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class, as that would violate our Permanently Provisional Policy Proposal (P^4).

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jorge
post Tue 18th September 2007, 10:09pm
Post #9


Postmaster
*******

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 1,910
Joined: Tue 28th Feb 2006, 11:54am
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 18th September 2007, 9:53pm) *

Okay, Jonny, is that your sock or not???

If that's your sock, it's brilliant!

If it's not your sock, it's even bettah!

So, from one Fiery angel to another, what's the straight story here??

(I'm still laughing. JzG, you've been pwned!!)

Yes it was brilliant Jonny!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Tue 18th September 2007, 10:50pm
Post #10


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm) *

Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class

Oh good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joseph100
post Tue 18th September 2007, 11:52pm
Post #11


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) *

No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways.

And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain.

In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose.

Jon Awbrey


I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the"excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm.

I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive.



This post has been edited by Joseph100: Thu 20th September 2007, 12:12am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Wed 19th September 2007, 2:12am
Post #12


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 18th September 2007, 7:52pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 11:38am) *

No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways.

And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain.

In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose.

Jon Awbrey


I DO. IF you yell the lie, long enough and hard enough from the highest hill, then the lie becomes the the "excepted truth" (see flat earth, and Joseph Goebbels) and the darkness falls where abuse and enslavement become the accepted norm.

I believe, wikipedia should be bought down, diminished, and or shown what it really is and why it should never ever be taken as a place of accurate information or pure motive.


Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Wed 19th September 2007, 9:30pm
Post #13


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:12pm) *

Didn't Lenin say something similar? If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth?


I don't know if it was Vlad or some other Impaler who first proposed the hypothesis, but we can always do the experiment —

any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome
any serious, well thought out criticism of wikipedia is always welcome

Nope, it still sounds false as all get-out to me — how about you?
Then again, maybe we just didn't repeat the lie long enough.
Nevermind, through, there's already a place for that.

Jonny cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 19th September 2007, 9:32pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Thu 20th September 2007, 1:42pm
Post #14


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted.

QUOTE

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

The controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position.

Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this:

Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.

The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis.

The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!"

The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position.

Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 20th September 2007, 2:40pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joseph100
post Thu 20th September 2007, 5:01pm
Post #15


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 20th September 2007, 7:42am) *

Let us revisit the Evidence Presented by SlimVirgin to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (WAC) in the matter of "Attack Sites", as that was the incident that incited me to take the novel if not indeed virginal step, for me, of trying to Talk To The ArbCom — its's the new Talk To The Hand — under the authorship of Name Redacted.

QUOTE

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

The controversy over attack sites was created by people who regularly post to those sites. They created a bunch of slippery-slope strawman positions — "the policy means we can't link to the New York Times!!!" — that other Wikipedians mistook as an implication of the real position.

Some common sense is needed. The anti-linking position is simply this:

Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyberstalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. Even if a website appears not to have been created for that purpose, if a *substantial* amount of its content is devoted to any of the above, it counts as an attack site that should not be linked to anywhere on Wikipedia.

The only websites affected are Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Watch, AntiSocialMedia, and a webpage run by Nobs01. Users who try to apply it to michaelmoore.com are simply mistaken. Mistaken application of policy need not affect the policy itself: if it did, we'd have no policies, given that they're all misapplied on a daily basis.

The anti-linking position needn't undermine content. If any of these sites becomes the focus of stories published by multiple reliable sources, and is therefore added to the main namespace, there would still be no need to link to it — our source for material about a notable website would be the reliable source, not the website itself. Mainstream newspapers writing about newsworthy websites that contain defamation or threats of violence often don't even name them, and they certainly don't offer URLs. Their attitude is "this is news and therefore we're reporting it", rather than "hey, come and have a look!"

The important point is that stalkers who create websites for the purpose of scaring our volunteers shouldn't be rewarded by having links to their sites posted by the same project that exposed the volunteer to the stalking in the first place. That is surely a matter of basic common sense and decency. If a rare and unforeseen situation arises where doing so really is necessary, then IAR applies, but those exceptions needn't affect the basic position.

Finally, just because we have a policy (written or otherwise) that says these sites shouldn't be linked to doesn't mean that every single instance of such a link must always and immediately be removed, and posters blocked. It's a policy best enforced with a cluestick rather than a sledgehammer. SlimVirgin 03:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


In view of the evidence that Name Redacted is now and forever blocked by the Jay J.G. known as Jpgordon — incidentally supplying continuing evidence, as if it were ever in short supply, of exactly what kind of "welcome" Wikipedia holds out to "any serious, well thought out criticism of Wikipedia" — I will continue my responses in a Forum where the capacity for critical reason is not yet an altogether lost cause.

Jon Awbrey


See a true picture of a typical wikiadminidiot...

WE LOVE TO EAT EDITORS..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Thu 20th September 2007, 5:34pm
Post #16


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Thu 20th September 2007, 11:01am) *


See a true picture of a typical wikiadminidiot...

WE LOVE TO EAT EDITORS..


Nice ascii art Joseph.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sat 22nd September 2007, 1:44am
Post #17


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm) *

Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.


Oh good.


That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia.

Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past.

Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc.

Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained?

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 22nd September 2007, 6:02am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joseph100
post Sun 23rd September 2007, 1:24am
Post #18


Senior Member like Viridae
*****

Group: On Vacation
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 4:01am
Member No.: 871



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 21st September 2007, 8:44pm) *

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 18th September 2007, 6:50pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:26pm) *

Well, we don't want to be picking on Guys as a class.


Oh good.


That bit about No More Monsieur Nice Guy was just my way of signaling a significant sea-change in my attitude toward Wikipedia.

Along with that change in attitude there goes a change in approach. I just wanted to prevent people whose opinions I value from being confused about the fact that I will in future not be playing by the same rules that I played by in the past.

Wikipedia is an Online Game that is designed to enculcate its players in a particular belief system. Given Bain's Maxim that a belief is that on which a person is prepared to act, this means that the Game socializes the players who succeed in it to particular ways of acting, forms of conduct, and dispositions to behave in distinctive manners. It is therefore a Training Online Game (TOG) or an Online Game Intended For Training (OGIFT). Beware of Geeks, etc.

Next Question. To what Modes Or Forms Of Conduct are the players being entrained?

Jon Awbrey


g-damn right!!!


We should now apply rules of "REAL WORLD" to Wacky World of Wiki Cult Belief System.
Or, WWWCBS

a. [[US:LAW]] Above all else, the foundation members and servers live in florida and are under
the juristions of US law, Civil and Criminal.

This is the starting point of Dealing with the WWWCBS.

This post has been edited by Joseph100: Sun 23rd September 2007, 1:50am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Castle Rock
post Sun 23rd September 2007, 1:42am
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu 13th Sep 2007, 7:27am
From: Oregon
Member No.: 3,051



QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 18th September 2007, 10:38am) *

No More Monsieur Nice Guy

After all this time, I get the feeling that many people, even many denizens of The Wikipedia Review, fail to comprehend the magnitude of the threat to Civil Society that is posed by Wikipedia and its ways.

And every time I get a glimmer of hope that Wikipedians themselves might just get their ways back on the path to recovery of humane good sense — well, they never fail to dash those hopes back into the mud of what they seem bound and determined to remain.

In order that some of you who know me best will understand the change in tactics that I must now undertake, I will try to lay out as clearly as I can why I think that Wikipedia and its ways pose the kind of danger to society that all people of good will must eventually oppose.

Jon Awbrey

A threat to society.

I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Sun 23rd September 2007, 2:24am
Post #20


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Sat 22nd September 2007, 9:42pm) *

A threat to society.

I think you are vastly overestimating the relevancy Wikipedia and the internet as a whole has to the majority of people's lives.


Gosh, I hope so.

I would love it if I could wake up one day from this waking nightmare and see that my Cassandroid Anxieties were all a bad dream.

I remember the time when Spiro Agnew dismissed the waves of protesters that were warning us about the last Vietnam War, calling them all a bunch of Crying Cassandras. The poor jerk did not even seem to realize what he had just said. And here we are back to the failures of public education again.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 23rd September 2007, 4:04am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 3rd 9 14, 6:59am