JzG's biggest mistake, Disparaging Cade Metz Options

[Kato]

The biggest mistake JzG has made on Wikipedia, the one that people should really be looking at closely, was his reaction to The Register stories in December.

This is described at the foot of this Wikipedia Review blog posting here. JzG's wild overreaction had him attacking people all over Wikipedia and the internet, and included the now infamous "Piece of shit Register story" attack. His attacks were accompanied by several disparaging references to Cade Metz, the journalist who was covering the stories, and obviously reading every word.

This totally unprofessional and self destructive flurry sealed Wikipedia's fate in the eyes of the media in one foul swoop. All the editors, all the articles, Jimbo Wales, the WMF, Wikia, everything was up for grabs as a result of that stupid, thoughtless attack.

Metz immediately shot off another article to the million or so readers of that magazine. And then peeled a Wikipedia Review thread about Jossi Fresco straight off our forums to hit them again in the New Year.

The media realized that stories on Wikipedia corruption brought in readers. And where better to get them from than places like the Wikipedia Review? Journalists were investigating stories from here for themselves, and figuring that many of them held up under scrutiny.

By the time ValleyWag was linking to one of our threads about Rachel Marsden, after Wikipedia had so successfully shot themselves in the foot again and again since December, Wikipedia was easy pickings for the media.

Yesterday, Cade Metz wrote another piece, which accurately depicts Wikipedia's predicament. It articulates exactly what Wikipedia Reviewers have been telling Wikipedia for a long time. But they didn't listen over there. Naive folks like JzG kept attacking and attacking, until Wikipedia resembles an open corpse. Food for the vultures.

JzG publicly personified Wikipedia's inability to process external criticism. And everyone on the site, from the best editors to the worst administrators, have paid a heavy price for this appalling attitude. The price will be the cruel and relentless public discrediting of all their hard work in the coming months and years at the hands of an uncaring media.

In the future, when historians look at Wikipedia as a bizarre 2000-2010 phenomenon that eventually collapsed, they won't be putting the blame on external Websites like us. Or critics like Daniel Brandt or Jon Awbrey. They'll be putting the blame on naive people like JzG, who positioned themselves as tub-thumpers and opinion formers for a community who didn't ask them to do so, and who brought it down on themselves and everyone else involved.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

The biggest mistake JzG has made on Wikipedia, the one that people should really be looking at closely, was his reaction to The Register stories in December.

This is described at the foot of this Wikipedia Review blog posting here. JzG's wild overreaction had him attacking people all over Wikipedia and the internet, and included the now infamous "Piece of shit Register story" attack. His attacks were accompanied by several disparaging references to Cade Metz, the journalist who was covering the stories, and obviously reading every word.

This totally unprofessional and self destructive flurry sealed Wikipedia's fate in the eyes of the media in one foul swoop. All the editors, all the articles, Jimbo Wales, the WMF, Wikia, everything was up for grabs as a result of that stupid, thoughtless attack.

Metz immediately shot off another article to the million or so readers of that magazine. And then peeled a Wikipedia Review thread about Jossi Fresco straight off our forums to hit them again in the New Year.

The media realized that stories on Wikipedia corruption brought in readers. And where better to get them from than places like the Wikipedia Review? Journalists were investigating stories from here for themselves, and figuring that many of them held up under scrutiny.

By the time ValleyWag was linking to one of our threads about Rachel Marsden, after Wikipedia had so successfully shot themselves in the foot again and again since December, Wikipedia was easy pickings for the media.

Yesterday, Cade Metz wrote another piece, which accurately depicts Wikipedia's predicament. It articulates exactly what Wikipedia Reviewers have been telling Wikipedia for a long time. But they didn't listen over there. Naive folks like JzG kept attacking and attacking, until Wikipedia resembles an open corpse. Food for the vultures.

JzG publicly personified Wikipedia's inability to process external criticism. And everyone on the site, from the best editors to the worst administrators, have paid a heavy price for this appalling attitude. The price will be the cruel and relentless public discrediting of all their hard work in the coming months and years at the hands of an uncaring media.

In the future, when historians look at Wikipedia as a bizarre 2000-2010 phenomenon that eventually collapsed, they won't be putting the blame on external Websites like us. Or critics like Daniel Brandt or Jon Awbrey. They'll be putting the blame on naive people like JzG, who positioned themselves as tub-thumpers and opinion formers for a community who didn't ask them to do so, and who brought it down on themselves and everyone else involved.

Brilliant piece.

After reading the endless comments, it appears as if Mr. Chapman was under the influence of some very disturbed thinking and maybe some chemicals and / or alcohol poisoning. (i.e., repeating the same negative behavior over and over...with the expectations of a different result.)
He is not a good spokesperson for Jimmy's rag. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

[Derktar]

Taken from Danny's RFA:

Support. We know Danny, he errs on the side of caution. Easy call. The oppose !votes? Well-meaning but misguided, in my view. Danny's first instinct is reliably and repeaably to protect the project. In the Olden Days peopel were unwilling to challenge him. Why? He seems like a reaosnable guy, his responses to me have always been fair. The All-Highest clearly trusts him, most of the people I know and trust, trust Danny. Let's not get bogged down in past issues tied to Foundation and office actions, take the man at face value. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So when Danny started becoming an open critic he went from "reasonable guy" to "disgruntled former employee."