Cyborgology ► Pinterest and Feminism, In which an article about Pinterest makes a good point Options

[Text]

It is not like the nerds had much to say either.

Not many people have much to say. Nerds, even if they are completely socially inept, at least spent some time to understand things like how a computer works, the problems involved in keeping one, and all of the aspects related to protection, privacy, security, and possible scams. An ordinary person is not that likely to know these things, and starts whining when their "privacy" on Faceborg or any social site is not respected when they post pictures of themselves drunk or naked (cue to 4chan threads with hundreds of pictures from Faceborg featuring naked girls). I noticed that Lamerbook com was posted here, and it summarizes these things somewhat. See also some news related to firings due to Twitter posts.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is not like the nerds had much to say either.

Not many people have much to say. Nerds, even if they are completely socially inept, at least spent some time to understand things like how a computer works, the problems involved in keeping one, and all of the aspects related to protection, privacy, security, and possible scams. An ordinary person is not that likely to know these things, and starts whining when their "privacy" on Faceborg or any social site is not respected when they post pictures of themselves drunk or naked (cue to 4chan threads with hundreds of pictures from Faceborg featuring naked girls). I noticed that Lamerbook com was posted here, and it summarizes these things somewhat. See also some news related to firings due to Twitter posts.

More nerd conceit. UseNet was the fountainhead of all that is wrong with the internet. UseNet was Nerd City.

[Web Fred]

It is not like the nerds had much to say either.

Not many people have much to say. Nerds, even if they are completely socially inept, at least spent some time to understand things like how a computer works, the problems involved in keeping one, and all of the aspects related to protection, privacy, security, and possible scams. An ordinary person is not that likely to know these things, and starts whining when their "privacy" on Faceborg or any social site is not respected when they post pictures of themselves drunk or naked (cue to 4chan threads with hundreds of pictures from Faceborg featuring naked girls). I noticed that Lamerbook com was posted here, and it summarizes these things somewhat. See also some news related to firings due to Twitter posts.

More nerd conceit. UseNet was the fountainhead of all that is wrong with the internet. UseNet was Nerd City.

Usenet is what is right about the net, the web is when things started to go wrong.

Usenet was the start of the internet and it'll still be there long after the web implodes.

[Text]

More nerd conceit. UseNet was the fountainhead of all that is wrong with the internet. UseNet was Nerd City.

According to some random user, what was wrong in internet in 2002?
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2002/11/14/th...h_the_internet/

What is currently wrong with internet in 2012? Discussion with Vint Cerf, Van Jacobson, Nick Weaver, and Jim Gettys (technical aspects)
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/2/14541...ternet/fulltext

What is currently wrong with internet according to Hadley Freeman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...g-with-internet

Usenet had probably got some useful content in 1995, though it all decayed a few years later due to lack of maintenance and invasion trolls and uninterested people. Wikipedia had some decent content, but is rapidly decaying due to trolls and uninterested people.

A thing most people get wrong is that somehow typing defamation online is different from attaching posters with insults to a wall. It would be all right if reputation didn't exist.

[GlassBeadGame]

More nerd conceit. UseNet was the fountainhead of all that is wrong with the internet. UseNet was Nerd City.

According to some random user, what was wrong in internet in 2002?
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2002/11/14/th...h_the_internet/

What is currently wrong with internet in 2012? Discussion with Vint Cerf, Van Jacobson, Nick Weaver, and Jim Gettys (technical aspects)
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/2/14541...ternet/fulltext

What is currently wrong with internet according to Hadley Freeman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...g-with-internet

Usenet had probably got some useful content in 1995, though it all decayed a few years later due to lack of maintenance and invasion trolls and uninterested people. Wikipedia had some decent content, but is rapidly decaying due to trolls and uninterested people.

A thing most people get wrong is that somehow typing defamation online is different from attaching posters with insults to a wall. It would be all right if reputation didn't exist.

The great masses of "uninterested people" have the correct view of Wikipedia. Obsessive nerds are the problem.

[Text]

The great masses of "uninterested people" have the correct view of Wikipedia. Obsessive nerds are the problem.

The average citizen in the offline realm thinks Wikipedia is pretty cool. Why is that? They can find anything in a couple of paragraphs so they don't have to spend too much time reading stuff they really don't care about. But this inhibites individual research if they take anything up there for granted. They really should check more sources, both on poorly ranked sites and offline.

If the correct view is letting the site decay so people don't use it anymore, then okay, if it forces people to check more different sources.

[Web Fred]

Obsessive nerds are the problem.

So what's the difference between obsessive nerds and obsessive non-nerds?

[GlassBeadGame]

The great masses of "uninterested people" have the correct view of Wikipedia. Obsessive nerds are the problem.

The average citizen in the offline realm thinks Wikipedia is pretty cool. Why is that? They can find anything in a couple of paragraphs so they don't have to spend too much time reading stuff they really don't care about. But this inhibites individual research if they take anything up there for granted. They really should check more sources, both on poorly ranked sites and offline.

If the correct view is letting the site decay so people don't use it anymore, then okay, if it forces people to check more different sources.

Weird. They think Wikipedia is weird. They don't need some Wikipedian defender lecturing them on their study habits. You are a part of the problem. Your participation contributes more to any general dumbing-down than their "sloth."

[Alison]

The average citizen in the offline realm thinks Wikipedia is pretty cool. Why is that? They can find anything in a couple of paragraphs so they don't have to spend too much time reading stuff they really don't care about. But this inhibites individual research if they take anything up there for granted. They really should check more sources, both on poorly ranked sites and offline.

If the correct view is letting the site decay so people don't use it anymore, then okay, if it forces people to check more different sources.

Weird. They think Wikipedia is weird. They don't need some Wikipedian defender lecturing them on their study habits. You are a part of the problem. Your participation contributes more to any general dumbing-down than their "sloth."

Dude, "Text" is an extremely well-known and prolific Wikipedia troll, and he's doing his best to hasten the day. Just so's you know

[GlassBeadGame]

The average citizen in the offline realm thinks Wikipedia is pretty cool. Why is that? They can find anything in a couple of paragraphs so they don't have to spend too much time reading stuff they really don't care about. But this inhibites individual research if they take anything up there for granted. They really should check more sources, both on poorly ranked sites and offline.

If the correct view is letting the site decay so people don't use it anymore, then okay, if it forces people to check more different sources.

Weird. They think Wikipedia is weird. They don't need some Wikipedian defender lecturing them on their study habits. You are a part of the problem. Your participation contributes more to any general dumbing-down than their "sloth."

Dude, "Text" is an extremely well-known and prolific Wikipedia troll, and he's doing his best to hasten the day. Just so's you know

It doesn't matter what the user's motive is. "Good Wikipedian"/"Bad Wikipedian" makes no difference. The "valued content creator" and the troll are completely equal when they hit the edit button. The vandal who trashes an article and good ole Alison rushing in to clean up the mess are just enabling each other in the weird game that is Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Wed 28th March 2012, 6:43am

[Alison]

Dude, "Text" is an extremely well-known and prolific Wikipedia troll, and he's doing his best to hasten the day. Just so's you know

It doesn't matter what the user's motive is. "Good Wikipedian"/"Bad Wikipedian" makes no difference. The "valued content creator" and the troll are completely equal when they hit the edit button. The vandal who trashes an article and good ole Alison rushing in to clean up the mess are just enabling each other in the weird game that Wikipedia.

Read what I said again; "Text" is not a vandal.

[GlassBeadGame]

Dude, "Text" is an extremely well-known and prolific Wikipedia troll, and he's doing his best to hasten the day. Just so's you know

It doesn't matter what the user's motive is. "Good Wikipedian"/"Bad Wikipedian" makes no difference. The "valued content creator" and the troll are completely equal when they hit the edit button. The vandal who trashes an article and good ole Alison rushing in to clean up the mess are just enabling each other in the weird game that Wikipedia.

Read what I said again; "Text" is not a vandal.

Whatever makes you better than other people in your narrow, little and not quite real world.

[Alison]

Dude, "Text" is an extremely well-known and prolific Wikipedia troll, and he's doing his best to hasten the day. Just so's you know

It doesn't matter what the user's motive is. "Good Wikipedian"/"Bad Wikipedian" makes no difference. The "valued content creator" and the troll are completely equal when they hit the edit button. The vandal who trashes an article and good ole Alison rushing in to clean up the mess are just enabling each other in the weird game that Wikipedia.

Read what I said again; "Text" is not a vandal.

Whatever makes you better than other people in your narrow, little and not quite real world.

Whatev indeed. But if you look a little closer, it's interesting to see how Text operates. He stirs massive drama wherever he goes, fights to add controversial and explicit images to various articles, introduces subtle inaccuracies here and there, sets editors against each other, and simultaneously campaigns for *and* against various issues.. All over a period of about six years. He's done quite a lot to contribute to the demise of the project, in his own way. And you don't find this worthy of discussion, no?

[GlassBeadGame]

Whatev indeed. But if you look a little closer, it's interesting to see how Text operates. He stirs massive drama wherever he goes, fights to add controversial and explicit images to various articles, introduces subtle inaccuracies here and there, sets editors against each other, and simultaneously campaigns for *and* against various issues.. All over a period of about six years. He's done quite a lot to contribute to the demise of the project, in his own way. And you don't find this worthy of discussion, no?

I am discussing it. What takes it "worthy of discussion" is the very fact that this does not make him different than you in any way that matters.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Wed 28th March 2012, 6:51am

[Alison]

Whatev indeed. But if you look a little closer, it's interesting to see how Text operates. He stirs massive drama wherever he goes, fights to add controversial and explicit images to various articles, introduces subtle inaccuracies here and there, sets editors against each other, and simultaneously campaigns for *and* against various issues.. All over a period of about six years. He's done quite a lot to contribute to the demise of the project, in his own way. And you don't find this worthy of discussion, no?

I am discussing it. What takes it "worthy of discussion" is the very fact that this does not make him different than you in any way that matters.

What makes him different than most WP editors is that he *does* see it as a game. Anyways, he'll speak for himself, I'm sure ....

[GlassBeadGame]

What makes him different than most WP editors is that he *does* see it as a game.

...and you don't?

[Alison]

What makes him different than most WP editors is that he *does* see it as a game.

...and you don't?

This isn't about me at all. Hence my comment, "most WP editors" ...

[Text]

Weird. They think Wikipedia is weird. They don't need some Wikipedian defender lecturing them on their study habits. You are a part of the problem. Your participation contributes more to any general dumbing-down than their "sloth."

No, we can leave the participation part to users like NawlinWiki, Silver Seren, and Beta M. It's more fun that way!
How is it different from kids showing off their powerful banhammers on different game servers, and then getting thrashed by the more experienced counterparts?

"We" are the outsiders criticizing the participants, and mocking them.

Wikipedia is weird, and so is Twitter, Faceb, Reddit, 4chan, and the rest. These things are weird but it generally isn't the software's fault!

But why do you think that most people think Wikipedia is weird? Do you have any data for that?

[Detective]

A thing most people get wrong is that somehow typing defamation online is different from attaching posters with insults to a wall.

Of course it's different. If I put a poster up outside my house, nobody will ever see it other than a handful of neighbours in my cul-de-sac and the postman (unless the Google Streetview people come round again). If I put it up on the Internet, it could in theory be seen by a billion people or more. Also, I can at any time take the poster down. There is no guarantee that anything, once on the Internet, can be deleted. There are too many caches and mirrors.

[Text]

Of course it's different. If I put a poster up outside my house, nobody will ever see it other than a handful of neighbours in my cul-de-sac and the postman (unless the Google Streetview people come round again). If I put it up on the Internet, it could in theory be seen by a billion people or more. Also, I can at any time take the poster down. There is no guarantee that anything, once on the Internet, can be deleted. There are too many caches and mirrors.

Eh, right. It's more like printing posters sequentially and putting them around the globe. Not so easy to do offline and surely very costly.