What is Cirt's Deal?, Did a Google Search for Cirt and Wikipedia and was shocked Options

[gomi]

I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC).

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

[Kwork]

If we eliminated all the WP users who have been made administrators, but should not have been, how many would there be left?

Obviously that depends on who you ask, but I've always figured the number to be around 60 percent. But the Return on Desysopping Investment (RoDI) figure doesn't chart as a straight line, it's more of a steep hockey-stick curve (to borrow a term from the GW debate). That is to say, if you desysop the worst 1 percent, which is only about 20 people, you'll probably solve 50 percent of your admin-related problems (ARPs); if you desysop the worst 5 percent you'll solve 70 percent of ARPs; the worst 10 percent and you'll solve 80 percent of ARPs, and so on.

I could put together a graphic if that would help, but you get the general idea. I'd say if you desysop about 50-60 people, and assuming they were the right people, you'd reach the point where the number of admin-related complaints drops below the Threshold of Legitimate Concern (TLC). It still wouldn't be a proper encyclopedia of course, and you'd still have content-related issues, but those things are probably inevitable.

My view towards administrators is that their purpose is to administer floggings to the wiki-serfs (editors), thereby maintaining a semblance of order, and suppressing signs of rebellion. From that point of view, the better they are as administrators the worse they are.

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

[EricBarbour]

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

And you keep hanging around the cult, why exactly?

If you desire floggings, I know a dominatrix who'll do a proper job.

[Kelly Martin]

Actually, if you ritually desysopped and banned the worst 5 admins each month, I think you'd hit the TLC pretty quickly. Admins love a show of force, after all, and there is much value in the image of heads on pikes in front of the castle, pour encourager les autres.

Are you kidding? Have you watched how they turn on someone once it becomes obvious that they're going to be thrown out of the treehouse? Those monthly ritual desysoppings would turn into some sort of weird Saturnalia ritual or something, with massive scheming behind the scenes jockeying for who's going to get the whack this month.

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

[Kwork]

Since WP is itself very like a cult, those who are sent into wiki-exile frequently actually fight to get back in, even though they know they will again be subject to wiki-floggings of the administrators.

And you keep hanging around the cult, why exactly?

Virtually none of my time goes into anything related to WP, including the few posts I make to this list.

[Tarc]

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

I have such a man-crush on Boston Rob.

[HRIP7]

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

Guilty. Well, formerly guilty. But I didn't stop because I saw the light, so much as because I didn't have cable for a long time, and then I had commitments Thursday evenings, and I just never fell back into the habit. But I'm still guilty of the thoughtcrime, at least.

(In my defense, everybody who knows me finds my affection for Survivor to be highly uncharacteristic.)

Edit: Oh, and Kelly's completely right about the effect that a monthly desysopping quota would have; if you've read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, you should have a pretty good idea of what they'd look like.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Wed 31st March 2010, 6:23am

[pietkuip]

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

I do not agree. Cirt's article is basically a catalogue of the media coverage of the Australian senator's after-business speech. Turkish and Romanian newspapers are quoted to inflate the number of links. But curiously, Cirt does not give a link to the Hansard with the verbatim record of what Xenohon said. That reference would have made most of the rest unnecessary - which is not what Cirt wants.

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

Someone filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D), and the main reason that people give for keeping it is the enormous number of links. Cirt knows how to to that, with clusters of media references that are not at all independent from eachother.

This post has been edited by pietkuip: Wed 31st March 2010, 9:32am

[HRIP7]

Actually, credit where credit is due, Cirt has done a great job now with the Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D) article. The people skills may suck sometimes, but the research skills are top-class.

I do not agree. Cirt's article is basically a catalogue of the media coverage of the Australian senator's after-business speech. Turkish and Romanian newspapers are quoted to inflate the number of links. But curiously, Cirt does not give a link to the Hansard with the verbatim record of what Xenohon said. That reference would have made most of the rest unnecessary - which is not what Cirt wants.

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

Someone filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D), and the main reason that people give for keeping it is the enormous number of links. Cirt knows how to to that, with clusters of media references that are not at all independent from eachother.

Cirt certainly knows how to make a thin smattering of sources go a long way, sometimes stretching them almost to breaking point in the process. If you leaf through the beginning of this thread, A Horse with No Name gave a few good examples where Cirt seemed to have used practically every last source available to make a vigorous article on an obscure topic.

But the Aaron Saxton BLP now does have biographical data; it's no longer just a coatrack, and Cirt has explained for example that the Sea Org that Saxton belonged to, described in one source as "Scientology's senior management", actually comprises several thousand people.

You know and I know that Cirt only uploaded the videos and wrote the article in order to maximise the exposure these youtube videos will get. But I still admire the Wikipedian craftsmanship (in research and writing, that is; I don't endorse Cirt's methods of conflict resolution). Cirt was prepared to put in the work to make the article acceptable, by Wikipedia criteria, so good luck to her.

That these criteria produce a Wikipedia with strange priorities is inherent in the basic concept that anyone should be able to write about whatever they want, as long as there is coverage in reliable sources. It's why we have wonderfully detailed articles about Pokemons and Scientology spoofs, and a crap article on a Nobel Prize winner like Doris Lessing (T-H-L-K-D).

[CharlotteWebb]

Edit: Oh, and Kelly's completely right about the effect that a monthly desysopping quota would have; if you've read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, you should have a pretty good idea of what they'd look like.

The committee's track record has been only slightly better than random selection.

[radek]

Remember, these are people who watch, and enjoy, shows like Survivor.

I have such a man-crush on Boston Rob.

Yeah, don't insult Survivor by comparing it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is like survivor with 70% of editors playing the role of "Evil Russell", and 15% (or whatever % admins compromise) scrambling to play the Probst role.

Decent people "win" on Survivor more often then they do on Wikipedia.

[chrisoff]

Who is Durova like on Survivor?

[Somey]

Cirt only wrote this article because I had made a deletion request on commons for Saxton's self-published YouTube videos (not out of the blue, there was discussion about whether such videos belong on Commons, and I made the deletion request to channel the discussion to a proper place). Cirt's defense was to immediately write an article about this Very Important Scientologist (that nobody had heard of before). And he started using the YouTube videos in the article, which almost automatically means that they are kept on commons.

FYI, today he started a Wikiversity Project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Did we ever find out why he's so anti-CoS? I mean, most people are anti-CoS to some extent, which is good, but this guy really goes all-out!

[pietkuip]

FYI, today he started a Wikiversity Project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Interesting. A very transparent move to secure that these videos are "in project scope" according to the rules on Commons.

Cirt has now got me blocked for a month on Commons, with support from Cuerden and Durova (nice to see that they patched up their quarrel), and from volunteer coordinator Bastique. They are putting pressure on admins that are inclined to lift the block.

Ah well, Commons has become just as bad as the rest of the wikipedia.

[Zoloft]

Who is Durova like on Survivor?

I like to use a simple car analogy...

[HRIP7]

FYI, today he started a Wikiversity Project "incorporating" these videos (it's really just a catalog of the videos with no related "coursework," natch). I presume that's just in case he gets overruled on the WP articles.

Interesting. A very transparent move to secure that these videos are "in project scope" according to the rules on Commons.

Cirt has now got me blocked for a month on Commons, with support from Cuerden and Durova (nice to see that they patched up their quarrel), and from volunteer coordinator Bastique. They are putting pressure on admins that are inclined to lift the block.

The whole sorry mess about Pieter's block is here.

Interesting Wikiversity project. I note Cirt included the Ranch School video that is now gone from that Wikipedia article.

Cirt clearly sees it as her mission to turn Commons into a public-domain version of Xenu TV). And in principle there is nothing wrong with that, or with writing project content that makes use of these materials. It would just be nice if Cirt could do it without shouting "harassment" when Pieter nominates her copyright violations in Commons for deletion.

[pietkuip]

Interesting Wikiversity project. I note Cirt included the Ranch School video that is now gone from that Wikipedia article.

Cirt clearly sees it as her mission to turn Commons into a public-domain version of Xenu TV). And in principle there is nothing wrong with that, or with writing project content that makes use of these materials.

I have only looked at a small fraction of all that video. A large part of it seems rather personal, and contains allegations about private persons. I do not think that wikipedia should be a megaphone for broadcasting dirt. What is next? former choir boys accusing their priests?

There is video there that shows anti-cult activists heckling and harassing adherents of Scientology. My impression as an outsider is that it reflects badly on the rabid activists. But one can also argue that its presence on commons makes wikipedia an accomplice in the harassment. Apparently all this has the backing of the Office.

[HRIP7]

There is video there that shows anti-cult activists heckling and harassing adherents of Scientology. My impression as an outsider is that it reflects badly on the rabid activists. But one can also argue that its presence on commons makes wikipedia an accomplice in the harassment. Apparently all this has the backing of the Office.

That would explain a lot.

But what is the evidence? Apart from David Gerard sitting next to Jimbo in his anti-Scientology T-shirt, that is.

[HRIP7]

There is of course another aspect to these compilations of videos by disgruntled ex-Scientologists. It's like having a page on the institution of marriage, filled exclusively with video testimonies from people who have just gone through a bitter divorce. With nothing from honeymooners, and nothing from the people who have been happily married for 50 years. It's simply not a neutral portrayal.

And if "the Office" is indeed backing this, then they are engaged in the same thing that editors get sanctioned for by arbcom -- using the site for advocacy.