Printable Version of Topic
_ FT2 _ More fine proof of FT2's distinctive form of brain damage
Posted by: EricBarbour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
Authored almost entirely by our little lad. Includes some amazing howlers.
He defines "lulz" for us:
QUOTE
"lulz" (amusement at destructiveness)
And here's one that
FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:
QUOTE
Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".
Posted by: Nerd
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 2:11am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
Authored almost entirely by our little lad. Includes some amazing howlers.
He defines "lulz" for us:
QUOTE
"lulz" (amusement at destructiveness)
And here's one that
FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:
QUOTE
Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".
I can think of many such editors: DougsTech, Peter Damian, Aitias just off the top of my head...
Posted by: TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:11am)
And here's one that
FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:
QUOTE
Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".
You'd have to force yourself to read it first. Anyone else go blank when trying to read this mush?
But since Eric asked ... running it through the FT2 to English translator; 'doesn't matter if one's behavior is that of a productive editor if FT2 decides otherwise'.
Posted by: Somey
These kinds of things pop up from time to time - it's usually based on frustration, the reaction to which is to make an attempt to codify and formalize Wikipedia's disrespect, disdain, and general disregard for its victims. ("Victims" being people who attempt to defend themselves and their interests on Wikipedia itself, from Wikipedians using the site as a revenge platform or "defamation machine.")
Mind you, it's not that I dislike Mr. FT2 personally. He's simply bought into the "vision," hook line and sinker, and he's probably too far gone at this point to come back from the abyss. But like I often say, I'm sure he's a fairly nice guy if you meet him in person.
Posted by: Lifebaka
Not sure why it's labeled as a proposed guideline. I've suggested it be tagged as an essay, which it most clearly is. It'll avoid the hideous prospect of attempting to force people to take it seriously.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 10:57pm)
I've suggested it be tagged as an essay, which it most clearly is. It'll avoid the hideous prospect of attempting to force people to take it seriously.
Good idea!
I've actually been getting the impression that Mr. FT2 has been going through a few "ups and downs" lately. Nothing concrete of course, but some of his recent actions suggest a strong potential for burnout that he apparently isn't admitting to himself.
Posted by: Moulton
Sadder Budweiser
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 11:28pm)
It's usually based on frustration, the reaction to which is to make an attempt to codify and formalize Wikipedia's disrespect, disdain, and general disregard for its victims.
Yes. Mutual and reciprocal disdain, disregard, and disrespect are defining features of pathological relationships arising out of WikiCulture (which reflects human culture at large).
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 11:28pm)
He's simply bought into the "vision," hook line and sinker, and he's probably too far gone at this point to come back from the abyss.
The probability of epiphany and redemption is low, both in the real world and in WikiCulture.
What Wikipedia lacks is Obama-style beer summits.
Henry Louis Gates said that Sgt. Crowley is an engaging chap when he's not arresting someone.
I suppose many Wikipedians are really nice people when they are not acting like Wikipedians.
Posted by: Lifebaka
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:10am)
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 10:57pm)
I've suggested it be tagged as an essay, which it most clearly is. It'll avoid the hideous prospect of attempting to force people to take it seriously.
Good idea!
I've actually been getting the impression that Mr. FT2 has been going through a few "ups and downs" lately. Nothing concrete of course, but some of his recent actions suggest a strong potential for burnout that he apparently isn't admitting to himself.
Guy just needs a nice does of not giving a fuck. Does wonders for the lower bowels.
Posted by: sbrown
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 4:28am)
I'm sure he's a fairly nice guy if you meet him in person.
Thats a weird way to judge people. I expect Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were too.
Posted by: Moulton
Jack Nicholson is also a nice guy when he is not in costume as the villain.
Wikipedia has morphed from an encyclopedia project to a dramaturgy workshop. The actors there are probably a lot like many actors who can convincingly portray a psychopath when on the theatrical stage.
Then again, I suppose some of them really are nutcases in real life, too.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:10am)
Jack Nicholson is also a nice guy when he is not in costume as the villain.
{{cite}}
I seem to remember something about a coked-up Nicholson bashing somebody's windshield out with a golf club.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Posted by: Moulton
I suppose even nice guys have bad days.
Posted by: written by he who wrote it
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 3:10am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:11am)
And here's one that
FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:
QUOTE
Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".
You'd have to force yourself to read it first. Anyone else go blank when trying to read this mush?
But since Eric asked ... running it through the FT2 to English translator; 'doesn't matter if one's behavior is that of a productive editor if FT2 decides otherwise'.
To be fair, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083878.html. I'm sure there are more and earlier examples, but that one is by far the best.
*edit* Oh http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANot_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305745601&oldid=305708324, someone already deleted that line. (Props to CHL for remembering it, though.)
Posted by: One
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 11:38pm)
*edit* Oh http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANot_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305745601&oldid=305708324, someone already deleted that line. (Props to CHL for remembering it, though.)
Yeah, the expression is damaged goods to my ears. There can't be a much bigger misuse of the concept than that, and I don't see much use in rehabilitating it as a catch-all.
I won't sign anything that treats it as more than an essay.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
"Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site"? But that's at least half the administrative corps right there!
Of course, the reality is that "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a dogwhistle phrase used by the Cabal to mean "This individual is outcast and may be treated in any way you find amusing without fear of reprisal". Such typical Gerardism.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sun 2nd August 2009, 8:10pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:11am)
And here's one that
FT2 himself has violated repeatedly:
QUOTE
Inconsistent long-term agenda - Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (ie engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia", as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"..... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").
Feel free to poke more holes in his "logic".
You'd have to force yourself to read it first. Anyone else go blank when trying to read this mush?
But since Eric asked ... running it through the FT2 to English translator; 'doesn't matter if one's behavior is that of a productive editor if FT2 decides otherwise'.
You cannot translate FT2. All you can do is be amazed at the act
and wonder "what's with the shoe...?"
Posted by: Peter Damian
No, entirely untrue. I have been 'building the encyclopedia' consistently even through this mess. E.g. this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian#Law_of_Excluded_Middle
are notes for substantial additions to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Excluded_Middle
which is one of the three fundamental logical principles. The existing article is a mess. I was also planning changes to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
which contains substantial factual errors. Note also the red links in the draft above. Wikipedia has no article on 'schematic variable' which is a fundamental concept in mathematical logic, and no article about the 'infinite term' which is an important idea in Aristotelian logic. Nor on the distinction between sentential negation and predicate negation.
How is this not 'building an encyclopedia'? How does banning me for some dissent (not 'disruption') help?
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(sbrown @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:53am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 4:28am)
I'm sure he's a fairly nice guy if you meet him in person.
Thats a weird way to judge people. I expect Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were too.
Naah - those guys were all complete assholes. So was Mussolini, in fact...
I find it's usually best not to try to compare prominent Wikipedians with evil genocidal tyrants from 20th century history - people might get the idea that we've lost our sense of perspective. Besides, guys like Hitler and Stalin would never have had the patience to become WP admins - though they might have asked for "rollbacker" rights at some point, if only to make the edit-warring a little easier.
Posted by: Cla68
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 4th August 2009, 5:50am)
QUOTE(sbrown @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 1:53am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 4:28am)
I'm sure he's a fairly nice guy if you meet him in person.
Thats a weird way to judge people. I expect Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot were too.
Naah - those guys were all complete assholes. So was Mussolini, in fact...
I find it's usually best not to try to compare prominent Wikipedians with evil genocidal tyrants from 20th century history - people might get the idea that we've lost our sense of perspective. Besides, guys like Hitler and Stalin would never have had the patience to become WP admins - though they might have asked for "rollbacker" rights at some point, if only to make the edit-warring a little easier.
I've been around my share of machievellian overachievers, especially during my time in the military, and I can tell you, that they were
not "fairly nice people". One only needed to observe or interact with them for a short while to see that while they were undoubtedly above average in intelligence and usually polite and superficially cordial, they were also capable of throwing anyone to the wolves without a second thought if it suited their agenda to do so (of course, I'm not saying that I knew anyone who was as sociopathic as Stalin or Pol Pot). As Somey says, there probably aren't too many of these people involved to any great extent with Wikipedia, because they're more likely focused on much bigger and better things.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 8:35pm)
"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a dogwhistle phrase used by the Cabal to mean "This individual is outcast and may be treated in any way you find amusing without fear of reprisal".
More to the point, it's a specious theory of mind that purports to characterize the intentions of another person. In that regard, it's not only original research unsupported by the scientific method, it's almost surely a false theory of mind.
Posted by: dtobias
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 12:16am)
Guy just needs a nice does of not giving a fuck. Does wonders for the lower bowels.
I'd think "giving a shit" is what the lower bowels would need.
Posted by: Docknell
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 4th August 2009, 2:03pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 3rd August 2009, 8:35pm)
"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a dogwhistle phrase used by the Cabal to mean "This individual is outcast and may be treated in any way you find amusing without fear of reprisal".
More to the point, it's a specious theory of mind that purports to characterize the intentions of another person. In that regard, it's not only original research unsupported by the scientific method, it's almost surely a false theory of mind.
The scientific method is too consistently consistent for WP. What FT2 is working upon is a system that supports consistently inconsistent thinking. Its the method used by anyone who "works" on articles and constantly removes anything that is so horribly consistent with independent and reliable evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=305960396&oldid=304595776
(how can it possibly be discredited when it states it plainly in the literature, and it has overwhelmingly failed scientific testing?)
http://books.google.com/books?id=5-Plk1pAzekC&pg=PA198&dq=neurolinguistic+discredited+norcross&ei=mhl5SqqbGqniyQT81eXMDA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://gjarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf
(Hi PD if you are around, that latter publication is a gem)
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(Docknell @ Tue 4th August 2009, 10:35pm)
http://gjarhe.research.glam.ac.uk/media/files/documents/2009-07-17/JARHE_V1.2_Jul09_Web_pp57-63.pdf
(Hi PD if you are around, that latter publication is a gem)
Excellent find. FT2 won't like that one........
Posted by: Cla68
Somebody just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=306542622&oldid=306541943 FT2's essay in proposing a ban. I can't tell if they're joking or not.
Posted by: written by he who wrote it
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 7th August 2009, 5:30am)
Somebody just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=306542622&oldid=306541943 FT2's essay in proposing a ban. I can't tell if they're joking or not.
The user's editing history displays little evidence of a sense of humor. His userpage is that of a serious MMORPGer, one who knows exactly how much XP he'll earn by slaying a troublesome user. I don't think he's joking, and I think he proves http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305571492&oldid=305566003.
Posted by: emesee
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Fri 7th August 2009, 8:29am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 7th August 2009, 5:30am)
Somebody just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=306542622&oldid=306541943 FT2's essay in proposing a ban. I can't tell if they're joking or not.
The user's editing history displays little evidence of a sense of humor. His userpage is that of a serious MMORPGer, one who knows exactly how much XP he'll earn by slaying a troublesome user. I don't think he's joking, and I think he proves http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305571492&oldid=305566003.
But who needs a sense of humor when you can bask in all the glory of flying around in private jets and flying to private islands when you have all those billions of wiki dollars flowing your way that you earn from all your massive wiki endeavors?
Oh but your also helping poor children in Africa and teh flounder to promote his commercial website.
Posted by: sbrown
What about the converse? If someones clearly on WP to build an encyclopaedia (and more fool them!) does that mean they shouldnt be banned?
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(sbrown @ Fri 7th August 2009, 12:59pm)
What about the converse? If someones clearly on WP to build an encyclopaedia (and more fool them!) does that mean they shouldnt be banned?
I think it means they need therapy.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 7th August 2009, 2:01pm)
QUOTE(sbrown @ Fri 7th August 2009, 12:59pm)
What about the converse? If someone's clearly on WP to build an encyclopaedia (and more fool them!) does that mean they shouldn't be banned?
I think it means they need therapy.
The best therapy for someone who really does want to write a first-rate encyclopedia article is to post it on Google Knol.
Posted by: emesee
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th August 2009, 11:21am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 7th August 2009, 2:01pm)
QUOTE(sbrown @ Fri 7th August 2009, 12:59pm)
What about the converse? If someone's clearly on WP to build an encyclopaedia (and more fool them!) does that mean they shouldn't be banned?
I think it means they need therapy.
The best therapy for someone who really does want to write a first-rate encyclopedia article is to post it on Google Knol.
* Or Encyc.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Fri 7th August 2009, 12:29pm)
The user's editing history displays little evidence of a sense of humor. His userpage is that of a serious MMORPGer, one who knows exactly how much XP he'll earn by slaying a troublesome user. I don't think he's joking, and I think he proves http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305571492&oldid=305566003.
I believe he's best known 'round these parts as the fellow committed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA.
Posted by: written by he who wrote it
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 7th August 2009, 7:10pm)
QUOTE(written by he who wrote it @ Fri 7th August 2009, 12:29pm)
The user's editing history displays little evidence of a sense of humor. His userpage is that of a serious MMORPGer, one who knows exactly how much XP he'll earn by slaying a troublesome user. I don't think he's joking, and I think he proves http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia&diff=305571492&oldid=305566003.
I believe he's best known 'round these parts as the fellow committed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA.
Oh right, Mr. "I didn't see a humor tag." Yeah, he definitely wasn't joking.
(p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Thekohser/MAXDRAMA&diff=302695261&oldid=302694879 is priceless.)
Posted by: sbrown
QUOTE(emesee @ Fri 7th August 2009, 8:01pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th August 2009, 11:21am)
The best therapy for someone who really does want to write a first-rate encyclopedia article is to post it on Google Knol.
* Or Encyc.