| |
|
  |
 Jimbo's new website, Civilination.org promises new finger-waggling, scolding features |
|
|
| bambi |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 127
Joined:
Member No.: 6,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CharlotteWebb |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 30th December 2009, 5:19pm) 
That is one sparse and harsh looking site. All those red, black and white blocks. It screams Nazism.
The second paragraph here arguably contradicts itself. The gutter press offer a few stale anecdotes about the founders of the up-and-coming marching care-bear project. I will say the name is goofier than anything Sanger could have come up with. When I saw it my first thought was "some kind of computer game". After Sid Meier complains, Jimbo and Andrea will adopt a familiar *ci → *e syllable shift, mark my words. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 30th December 2009, 12:36pm) QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 30th December 2009, 6:16pm) Is that their solution to the civility problem? Dinner and a movie, then maybe back to the condo for let's-just-see-how-it-goes? That's not "civility," that's "nookie." Two different things. Worked for John and Yoko. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) No it didn't... Besides, what John and Yoko were trying to do was a form of passive protest against a war, using their notoriety to draw attention to a problem. What Jimbo and Andrea are trying to do, assuming this isn't all just a big joke, is direct exploitation of an ongoing problem, using their notoriety to, in effect, gain more notoriety. (The fact that they will fail miserably notwithstanding.) Another thing that's interesting about this is that the Wikia site currently has no links whatsoever back to civilination.org. Not one! Even the Aweckerle user page doesn't have one. However, it does say "Hi, I am Andrea, the founder of CiviliNation." Presumably if this takes off, Andrea and Jimbo will have a long, drawn-out argument over whether or not Jimbo is actually the founder. But the ultimate hypocrisy, of course, is the "Support/Donate" page, which states: QUOTE By making a donation today, you are supporting CiviliNation’s efforts to create an online culture in which individuals can fully engage and contribute without fear or threat of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment, or lies. In other words, Jimbo has set up a super-popular means for the rest of the world to heap abuse, harassment and lies on you, and now you can give money to Jimbo and his girlfriend so that they can talk about how awful this is, on another site that nobody ever reads!And check out the logo: I mean, at this point they really are just laughing their asses off at the rest of us. You'd think they could just go to a comedy club, or maybe read a funny book or go to a funny movie, but noooo - they have to do this.Frankly, these people are hypocritical scum of the worst kind, and it's about time people who really care about "civility" did something to stop them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
In case my comment on the Reg article gets moderated out of existence (though I don't see why it would, given what the other commenters are saying): QUOTE The sheer, unbridled arrogance, hypocrisy, narcissism, and utter lack of self-awareness being displayed by Mr. Wales and Ms. Weckerle here are... well, totally predictable and par for the course, actually! The thing is, on Wikipedia, accusing someone else of failing to be civil is, itself, considered a "civility violation." Wikipedia doesn't have a civil or civilized community, what they have is enforced civility, and the people enforcing it are usually 15-year-olds who are given ban-buttons and precious little else with which to do it. Meanwhile, the current motto on Ms. Weckerle's personal blog is "Attack life, wait for nothing." Yeah, that sounds really civil to me, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 30th December 2009, 2:19pm)
It's pretty clear to me after reading the Reg article that Jimmy created this to bitch about Valleywag, the Reg, and this site. It amuses me that he thinks of himself as the victim here.
I agree - Valleywag is clearly the main target, and WR is probably just a sideswipe (or "afterthought," or whatever the word is, I'm sure you get the general idea). I mean, right now, if you type " Jimbo Wales is an idiot" into Google, we're not even on the first page, whereas if you type in " Jimbo Wales Andrea Weckerle," our thread on the Valleywag article is #2 and the Valleywag article itself is #4. (In both cases the Jimmy Wales WP article is #1, of course, but Jimbo's not the sort to be satisfied with personal control over the #1 result, is he?) Appropriately enough, the Jimmy Wales' Other Other Women article, featuring Ms. Weckerle and the presumably wealthier, and more Canadian Louise Blouin MacBain, appeared on Valleywag exactly a year ago. (Civilination.org was registered on Aug. 24, 2009, using DomainsByProxy - which, I suppose, means they agree with the rest of us that the need for accountability ends just before the point where you're targeted with massive amounts of domain-registrar spam.) I'm proud of the fact that we're still the #1 result for " jimbo wales hypocrite," at least. I guess they just wanted to throw us a bone. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Wed 30th December 2009, 11:44pm) Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one. Jimmy's entire approach to life relies on manipulating people while maintaining a cheery, polite facade. Wikipedia, which is crafted in his image, does not tolerate blunt honesty any more than he does. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 31st December 2009, 9:53am) The CiviliNation wiki, hosted (with advertising that I doubt goes into the pending 501-c-3) on Wikia, Inc. servers, just got a little bit more accurate. Hmm... that's odd... QUOTE Your user name or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by Angela.
* Reason given: Kohs trolling
* Start of block: 23:08, December 31, 2009
* Expiry of block: infinity
* Intended blockee: Answer Ape
* Block ID: #4800
* Current IP address: 69.xxx.yyy.zz
Angela, you are a worthless coward. Happy new year to you and that weasel you work with at Wikia. I would encourage anyone in the world to help keep the following content inserted in cybercivility.wikia.com: QUOTE In October 2006, Jimmy Wales publicly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipedia Review&diff=prev&oldid=79585610 announced] that the Wikipedia Review approach to Wikipedia (an approach that Wales himself, six weeks earlier, had helped to shape) was “deeply unethical and inappropriateâ€, and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Arch+Coal&year=2006&month=10&tagfilter= deleted] the Wikipedia article about Arch Coal that Wikipedia Review had authored and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=79593222 mentioned] online. Even though it wasn’t written for payment, and the Arch Coal company wasn’t even aware of the article, Wales mistakenly assumed it was paid content and thusly labeled it “corporate spamâ€. Then he indefinitely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AWikipedia Review&year=2006&month=10&tagfilter= blocked] the Wikipedia Review user account on Wikipedia, so that it could not edit any more. Some hours later, Wales returned to Wikipedia to further blast the article about Arch Coal, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_5&diff=prev&oldid=79737021 calling it] a “travesty of NPOV [neutral point of view]†and “corporate fluffâ€. Wales also went to the blocked Wikipedia Review User page on Wikipedia and wrote a screed against the business there: "hiring Wikipedia Review... is counterproductive and unethical". One of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_M_Dodge/Outreach minions] then put the polemic in white lettering on a black background, just to make it stand out more.
It took Wales over two years to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArch_Coal&diff=258731121&oldid=224255965 finally apologize] for how he acted and how poorly he handled the situation. Now Wales is admonishing others, through CiviliNation, to be nice to others on the Internet. Do as I say, not as I do, we suppose. This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 31st December 2009, 10:12pm) Angela, you are a worthless coward. Happy new year to you and that weasel you work with at Wikia. And you're a brave one, you are, Gregg-O. (Nope, sorry, I won't touch this. Just ignore the whole thing. I suspect that this wiki will die out from lack of interest. The juice-drinkers don't want "civility", they want to have power.....to abuse others with no consequences. This wiki would accomplish nothing for them--it won't even give them that bizarre wiki editing high.) The more of this shit I see, the more I think Jimbo's got some kid of evil brain power that allows him to glamour people, and enslave them (or at least make them stalk him). Like a vampire. Or better, like Rachel on Misfits. Now, if only Jimbo would fall off a roof. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
They're calling in reinforcements at Wikia's CiviliNation. Looks like there were a lot of new accounts made today -- none of those I'll quote here were mine, by the way. QUOTE # 14:07, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Angela loves the taste of a good dick (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:06, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! This user creation interface is crammed with squares and rectangles (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:05, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jimmy and his gold-plated washing machine (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
# 14:03, January 1, 2010 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Angela likes big thangs in the mouth (Talk | contribs) New user account What a shame, that a site intended to stamp out meanies on the Internet would attract so many meanies! |
|
|
|
|
|
| wikademia.org |
|
Gloible Foible
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 185
Joined:
From: Narn?
Member No.: 10,113
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Wed 30th December 2009, 9:44pm)
Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one.
i would hope to deal with humans who are civil, polite, respectful, honest, and considerate... or at least try to do all those things... rather than just one who mindlessly follows policies, avoids being "a d----", avoids legal threats, ignores all rules, and bla bla bla bla bla. but the world ain't a perfect one, so oh well. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) <3 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Thu 31st December 2009, 6:44am)
Jimbo and his beau (Jimbo & Jimbeau?) don't seem to realize that simply being "civil" means very little. You can maintain a cheery, polite façade in every word you write, carefully crafting your remarks to avoid insult or vitriol, while still being diabolical and manipulative. It's the attitude behind the words that actually counts. It takes all kinds, and I'd personally prefer dealing with a blunt and honest person to a civil yet slippery one.
First of all, we can easily police name-calling and profanity--we really can't police slick manipulation. Secondly, even a slick manipulator contributes to a calm and peaceful atmosphere by refraining from angry outbursts when under stress. At the end of the day, you can maintain a community even when a lot of polite manipulation occurs, but you can't maintain a community when people are screaming at each other all the time. Real life is no different. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Sat 2nd January 2010, 1:38pm) First of all, we can easily police name-calling and profanity--we really can't police slick manipulation. Secondly, even a slick manipulator contributes to a calm and peaceful atmosphere by refraining from angry outbursts when under stress. At the end of the day, you can maintain a community even when a lot of polite manipulation occurs, but you can't maintain a community when people are screaming at each other all the time. Real life is no different. This is all wrong, EK. First, we've all seen on Wikipedia, and with other dysfunctional communities (including families), that if you impose artificial civility requirements, people will simply redefine the terms involved - so that comments which would be seen as harmless by anyone else become "personal attacks" within the dysfunctional community. Second, this is clearly "all or nothing" thinking. Adjusting the civility requirements to be more in line with real-world term definitions won't result in "people are screaming at each other all the time," it will result in people using easily-recognized conflict words some of the time, hopefully when the situation actually calls for it. What you have now is a situation where people who have been fully inculcated into the cult community have one standard, and people who haven't been inculcated have another, and the former group uses their higher standard as a cudgel against the latter group. This is how cults should work, and do work - but not encyclopedias. Third, what does the phrase "maintain the community" really mean? Presumably it means the three basic tasks of keeping people around, bringing new people in, and getting rid of undesirables. Artificial civility rules don't do a very good job of any of those things - they represent short-term, limited thinking, the idea that if WP'ers are forced to be nice to people on the surface, they'll stick around long enough to allow themselves to be indoctrinated, and/or addicted. That isn't going to work forever, assuming it ever did. Besides, WP's focus has always been on bringing more people in, often at the expense of the other two things. There's no fourth thing, but that's only because I have to go and do something non-internet-related now. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 2nd January 2010, 1:59pm) Artificial civility rules don't do a very good job of any of those things - they represent short-term, limited thinking, the idea that if WP'ers are forced to be nice to people on the surface, they'll stick around long enough to allow themselves to be indoctrinated, and/or addicted. That isn't going to work forever, assuming it ever did. Besides, WP's focus has always been on bringing more people in, often at the expense of the other two things. And that's the real point of the civility rules: don't scare off the recruits until you've got them addicted. The problem that Wikipedia needs to get past, in this area at least, is that quantity is no substitute for quality. But Wikipedia's leadership is not interested in quality, and so nothing will be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 1st January 2010, 4:39am)
The more of this shit I see, the more I think Jimbo's got some kid of evil brain power
that allows him to glamour people, and enslave them (or at least make them stalk him).
Like a vampire. ...
Jimbo is a stud. I can only hope to become half the godking he is. QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 2nd January 2010, 2:59pm)
First, we've all seen on Wikipedia, and with other dysfunctional communities (including families), that if you impose artificial civility requirements, people will simply redefine the terms involved - so that comments which would be seen as harmless by anyone else become "personal attacks" within the dysfunctional community.
Nice observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| WordBomb |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
|
QUOTE(bambi @ Wed 30th December 2009, 9:22am) While my story of incivility remains held for moderation, to his credit I did get email from Jimbo this morning asking me to forward him the email I referenced in my comment. I did so, and am hopeful of hearing back from him about it. In the meantime, here's what I submitted: QUOTE(me) It’s ironic that Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, would be on the board of this group, considering Wikipedia is one of the most hostile online environments I’ve encountered.
Here’s my story.
I discovered that a former journalist was violating multiple Wikipedia policies in the course of dramatically skewing articles relating to a specific form of stock market fraud. Basically, he was trying to cover the crime up. I blogged about what I had found, and one day, discovered a Wikipedia article about me had been created. It’s sources were comprised of nothing but this former journalist and his friends. The article was grossly slanted.
Recently, I’ve come to possess a series of private email exchanges in which this article is discussed. The person who created it admits that he did it to harm me. He was proud of that fact.
Jimbo Wales was on that email list, but did nothing.
Fortunately, the article was eventually removed, no thanks to Mr. Wales.
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.) Because the content of those emails would be of interest to folks here, I've started a new thread about it. You can read it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
