Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Editors _ Should valued contributers be treated differently?

Posted by: mbz1

I find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=467642191#Statement_by_Fetchcomms interesting:

QUOTE
If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins.

Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet?

If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice.


Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?

I have no answer to this question, but I would like to hear what others think about this matter. Thanks.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 2:24pm) *

Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?


No, no, a thousand times no.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 2:24pm) *

Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?


If one takes seriously Wikipedia's mission to create an encyclopedia, then before the faux-religious "5 pillars" should come a rule zero which should rule all administrative and functionary actions:

Before an admin, functionary or co-founder takes an action or decides not to do so, they must ask themselves this question "Will this particular action that I am considering help or hinder the development of a high-quality non-plagiarised encyclopedia that accurately reflects the most strongly evidenced facts rather than the opinions of cranks and people who have their own axes to grind?" If the former, go do it. If the latter, don't do it. If uncertain, seek some advice.

The better the content that someone produces, then the more likely that blocking or banning them will be harmful to the project. The more disruption someone causes, the less likely that such an action will be harmful.

Everyone should be treated the same but their value to the encyclopedia is an important factor that should be taken into account.

The people who are among the least useful to the project are trolls, subtle vandals and POV-pushers. Unfortunately, many admins and Jimbo find it a lot easier to spot some rude words than to identify those who are systematically distorting content. So, all too often, they go off on one about the rude words and defend the trolls. However, if they were actually to follow rule zero, they would realise that the person being sworn at is often a positive harm to the project and therefore the one most worthy of a block or ban.

Of course, if someone's rudeness is driving away useful contributors or reducing their willingmess to spend time developing content, then that is a cost to the project. So not just the usefulness of the perpetrator of a bit of rudeness should be taken into account, but also their target(s). More should be done to protect (rightfully) valued editors and newbies, who for all we know might become valued, than to protect timewasters.

Posted by: Fusion

Is there not a very important rule, namely WP:IAR? This basically asserts that you should ignore any rule that, if it were followed, would not contribute to the greater good. Naively, it might be said that allowing a good contributor to overjump the bounds of civility should therefore be good because if he continues to contribute, it will be better than if he doesn't. Conversely, however, if he is allowed to go too far it will create so bad an atmosphere that eventually he will be doing more bad than good because so many people - each not nearly as good as him individually but collectively better - will leave. I say that there is a balance to be struck. Where exactly is this balance is beyond me but I know that somewhere it is there.

Posted by: mbz1

I meant neither vandals nor trolls.
I meant only good faith editors.

For example, let's say Malleus who wrote many good articles has a dispute with jd turk whose only contributions is reverting vandalism.
If Malleus is banned, or even simply gets upset over a short block and leaves, it will be a loss for wikipedia.
If jd turk is banned or is driven away by Malleus, it would not be so much of a loss because there are many other users who could revert vandalism.
It will be very unfair to treat the users differently, but on the other hand to let Malleus go could be unfair towards wikipedia readers.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 8:24pm) *

I find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=467642191#Statement_by_Fetchcomms interesting:

QUOTE
If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins.

Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet?

If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice.


Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?

I have no answer to this question, but I would like to hear what others think about this matter. Thanks.


False dilemma. Of course valued contributors to any kind of project or business should be treated differently. Employees who have worked for more than one or two years often get different pension rights, reflecting the proven value of their contributions. The principle behind share options is to encourage staying with a firm. Certain legal rights apply around length of service.

Valued employees often get promoted or paid more, of course.

That doesn't mean that a valued employee or contributor should be allowed to bully or behave badly in other ways (although it happens, unfortunately).

It all depends what 'differently' means.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:03am) *

I meant neither vandals nor trolls.
I meant only good faith editors.

For example, let's say Malleus who wrote many good articles has a dispute with jd turk whose only contributions is reverting vandalism.
If Malleus is banned, or even simply gets upset over a short block and leaves, it will be a loss for wikipedia.
If jd turk is banned or is driven away by Malleus, it would not be so much of a loss because there are many other users who could revert vandalism.
It will be very unfair to treat the users differently, but on the other hand to let Malleus go could be unfair towards wikipedia readers.


Of course - the value that admins contribute is low-skill, low-value labour, because it is plentiful and in high supply. Writing good quality articles is not in high supply. I'm not sure about whether this is 'fair' or 'unfair'. It is simply a practical point that if you want to supply a good product, you reward the high-value contributors more than the low-value one. Except on Wikipedia but, as I have pointed out many times, there is no market incentive for Wikipedia to supply quality product. That is not Wikipedia's model.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 25th December 2011, 3:42pm) *


If one takes seriously Wikipedia's mission to create an encyclopedia, then before the faux-religious "5 pillars" should come a rule zero which should rule all administrative and functionary actions:

Before an admin, functionary or co-founder takes an action or decides not to do so, they must ask themselves this question "Will this particular action that I am considering help or hinder the development of a high-quality non-plagiarised encyclopedia that accurately reflects the most strongly evidenced facts rather than the opinions of cranks and people who have their own axes to grind?" If the former, go do it. If the latter, don't do it. If uncertain, seek some advice.


That's sort of a longwinded paraphrase of WP:IAR. The problem at WP is not the rules. It's the selective enforcement of the rules. I suspect that the rationale for that selective enforcement is similar to the argument you are making for "valued contributors"; in the case of SlimVirgin, for example, the reason her desysopping was temporary, when anyone else would probably have received the dreaded Community Ban, is that she was considered "valued." Another thing, therefore, which should be examined is the criteria for being considered "valued." Under present conditions it means you have racked up the most MMORPG points.

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 3:39pm) *

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.


Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people. Of course, they're trying (and sometimes failing) to do both at once with the university outreach programs.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 3:39pm) *

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.


Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people. Of course, they're trying (and sometimes failing) to do both at once with the university outreach programs.

I might be mistaking, but I got a feeling that the most profound contributors are usually too bright to spend the time on improving "shitty articles" written by somebody else. I believe the most profound contributors spend most time writing new articles or improving their own old ones.

I believe Kelly made some valid points. Even, if valued contributors are good for wikipedia, admins who block them seldom care about wikipedia. They mostly care what is the best way to demonstrate their power without loosing their tools.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 12:03am) *

For example, let's say Malleus who wrote many good articles has a dispute with jd turk whose only contributions is reverting vandalism.
If Malleus is banned, or even simply gets upset over a short block and leaves, it will be a loss for wikipedia.
If jd turk is banned or is driven away by Malleus, it would not be so much of a loss because there are many other users who could revert vandalism.
It will be very unfair to treat the users differently, but on the other hand to let Malleus go could be unfair towards wikipedia readers.


Here's the thing no one seems to want to acknowledge. Malleus (using one example) may be a good writer, but he's not unique. If he's banned because, just as an example, he knows his writing will grant him immunity when he rips other editors to shreds, then the encyclopedia won't shut down. It's a hive. It doesn't need a few really good contributors who are incapable of getting along with others. They need thousands of worker ants crawling all over the website, adding references and updating articles.

Their ongoing problems with retaining new editors, and keeping the old ones civil enough that talk pages don't turn into trolling internet forums go hand in hand.

WP doesn't want high-quality content. If they did, they'd hire high-quality writers. They want everyone in the world to contribute, regardless of ability, so everyone feels invested and will help a) add their content on articles they care about, and b) help pay for it.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:50pm) *

It's a hive. It doesn't need a few really good contributors who are incapable of getting along with others. They need thousands of worker ants crawling all over the website, adding references and updating articles.


That would be fine if there really were thousands of worker ants adding references to the articles on Aristotle, Civilisation, Philosophy etc and improving them. But there aren't. The worker ants just link to the Latvian Wikipedia, or change one sort of hyphen into another, or correct a spelling mistake while leaving poor grammar, poor style and false claims uncorrected.

How experts explain to non-experts that there are serious problems with the quality of Wikipedia? Oh that's right, they can't, because they aren't experts. Silly me.

QUOTE

WP doesn't want high-quality content.


So we agree, then.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 26th December 2011, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:50pm) *

It's a hive. It doesn't need a few really good contributors who are incapable of getting along with others. They need thousands of worker ants crawling all over the website, adding references and updating articles.


That would be fine if there really were thousands of worker ants adding references to the articles on Aristotle, Civilisation, Philosophy etc and improving them. But there aren't. The worker ants just link to the Latvian Wikipedia, or change one sort of hyphen into another, or correct a spelling mistake while leaving poor grammar, poor style and false claims uncorrected.

How experts explain to non-experts that there are serious problems with the quality of Wikipedia? Oh that's right, they can't, because they aren't experts. Silly me.




Wikipedia's treatment of valued contributors reminds to me a Russian poem (sorry for my translation)
QUOTE
Nuggets are thrown off a cliff,
Our gold is dullness.
We need no talents,
we only need dullness.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:23am) *
Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people.
Your statements are all predicated on the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Since your premise is erroneous, your conclusions are unsound. Wikipedia is a social network, not an encyclopedia, and as a social network the thing that matters most is how many people you can suck in. It's actually in their interest to have lots of sucky articles: the urge to improve suckitude is a big motivator for sucking people in.

Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good"). Wikipedia isn't about educating poor children in Africa or anywhere else, or even about knowledge generally. No, indeed, the main mission of Wikipedia is spreading WikiLove.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:00pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:23am) *
Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people.
Your statements are all predicated on the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Since your premise is erroneous, your conclusions are unsound. Wikipedia is a social network, not an encyclopedia, and as a social network the thing that matters most is how many people you can suck in. It's actually in their interest to have lots of sucky articles: the urge to improve suckitude is a big motivator for sucking people in.

Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good"). Wikipedia isn't about educating poor children in Africa or anywhere else, or even about knowledge generally. No, indeed, the main mission of Wikipedia is spreading WikiLove.


Wikipedia, and Jimbo in particular, has followed the path of least resistance - trading popularity for quality. This is demonstrated by a lack of experiments or projects that address quality. Without the framework or ability to create something of durable quality, few capable writers will waste their time. As I've mentioned before, it would be trivial to start any number of experiments that sends vetted articles to a new domain until their next vetting, or to publish a book or magazine of good work. But Wikipedia is both lazy and lacks leadership. Jimbo, in particular, is a leadership negative by virtue of his slovenly nature. How many times have you heard Jimbo say 'I'll look into it', never to be heard on the topic again. As the English Wikipedia's leader he should be working on editor retention, starting a critical mass of editors that are interested in doing quality work, and then trying to attract high quality editors that currently won't waste their time at Wikipedia. Of special note, Jimbo doesn't seem to get along with the project's best writers, and that is telling in several ways.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 26th December 2011, 3:59pm) *

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Sun 25th December 2011, 3:42pm) *


If one takes seriously Wikipedia's mission to create an encyclopedia, then before the faux-religious "5 pillars" should come a rule zero which should rule all administrative and functionary actions:

Before an admin, functionary or co-founder takes an action or decides not to do so, they must ask themselves this question "Will this particular action that I am considering help or hinder the development of a high-quality non-plagiarised encyclopedia that accurately reflects the most strongly evidenced facts rather than the opinions of cranks and people who have their own axes to grind?" If the former, go do it. If the latter, don't do it. If uncertain, seek some advice.


That's sort of a longwinded paraphrase of WP:IAR. The problem at WP is not the rules. It's the selective enforcement of the rules. I suspect that the rationale for that selective enforcement is similar to the argument you are making for "valued contributors"; in the case of SlimVirgin, for example, the reason her desysopping was temporary, when anyone else would probably have received the dreaded Community Ban, is that she was considered "valued." Another thing, therefore, which should be examined is the criteria for being considered "valued." Under present conditions it means you have racked up the most MMORPG points.


But selective enforcement need not be nepotism. A lot of systems do include judgement as an essential part of the process.

The definitions of disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association all contain a condition to the effect of "the symptoms ... cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (The wording varies slightly between different disorders, or at least they did in DSM IV, the version that was current when I was trained as a social worker and that I have at home.)

Much legislation in England and Wales requires that someone operating under it take into account "all the circumstances of the case". So when I was an Approved Social Worker considering whether to detain someone under the Mental Health Act 1983, I had to decide not only whether the person was mad, but whether detaining (or "sectioning") them was the best action in all the circumstances of the case. One time I was assessing a religious Christian on 23rd December. She was clearly psychotic but I decided that I should take the importance of Christmas to her into account as one of the circumstances of the case. (I think the daughter wanted a quiet Christmas and that this was why she had made the referral to us at that time. She was still happy to use her mother as a babysitter for her own children.) So, I said no to the psychiatrist who wanted to detain her. (The GP who was the third member of our decision-making group didn't want to detain her but was persuadable.) In January the three of us went back and, despite a valiant effort on her part to say how important she attended the visit to her church of an evangelical speaker from the US, all three of us agreed that now was the time to section her.

So what I say in my "long-winded paraphrase" is actually what is embedded into a lot of professional systems as the way of doing things. The Crown Prosecution Service has a similar criterion of only bringing a case if it is in "the public interest" to do so. The public interest equivalent in Wikipedia is whether Malleus's contributions are so valuable that it is not in the long-term interest of readers of Wikipedia that he is blocked or banned.

What you are complaining about is favouritism and self-interest. The admins you accuse are considering "do I like this person?" and "will taking this action have repercussions for me?" This is something else completely. After I decided not to section this woman above, I had a nightmare about her jumping off the roof of the block of flats in which she lived. All people deciding whether to section someone know perfectly well that they will never end up on the front page of the Daily Mail for taking away someone's liberty when it was necessary but they might if they decide not to section the person and they go on to do something dreadful. Most are professional and try to set that consideration aside.

Unfortunately a lot of people are not mature enough to be able to differentiate between a decision in the public interest and nepotism. And that applies both to those taking the decisions and those commenting on them.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:00pm) *
Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good").

That's a very interesting point that hadn't occurred to me.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 5:13pm) *

Wikipedia's treatment of valued contributors reminds to me a Russian poem (sorry for my translation)
QUOTE
Nuggets are thrown off a cliff,
Our gold is dullness.
We need no talents,
we only need dullness.



Good quote. Very Russian. I can imagine Shostakovitch or Mussorgsky setting it for bass voice.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:33pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 5:13pm) *

Wikipedia's treatment of valued contributors reminds to me a Russian poem (sorry for my translation)
QUOTE
Nuggets are thrown off a cliff,
Our gold is dullness.
We need no talents,
we only need dullness.



Good quote. Very Russian. I can imagine Shostakovitch or Mussiogsky setting it for bass voice.

You would laugh, but this "very Russian" quote, and it is Russian, was taken from a poem about Robert Kennedy, it was USA the author wrote about that they do not need talents.

Of course this author could not have written such poem about Soviet Union without risking being send to a mental hospital, but knowing this author, I am sure this poem was about Soviet Union much more than it was about USA. In Soviet Union every smart person was able to read between the lines. This ability often helped us to cope with the regime.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:47pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 26th December 2011, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 3:39pm) *

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.


Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people. Of course, they're trying (and sometimes failing) to do both at once with the university outreach programs.

I might be mistaking, but I got a feeling that the most profound contributors are usually too bright to spend the time on improving "shitty articles" written by somebody else. I believe the most profound contributors spend most time writing new articles or improving their own old ones.

I believe Kelly made some valid points. Even, if valued contributors are good for wikipedia, admins who block them seldom care about wikipedia. They mostly care what is the best way to demonstrate their power without loosing their tools.


I find it easier myself to work alone on a relatively small subject and create a good article. A larger subject may either need the perspective of more than one person or at least will require working around other people who may be invested in the current version. Also what I can write about is influenced by what references I have at home and what I can get for free. For other subjects I would have to reach out to other people and this involves finding someone I am happy to work with.

In the case of Richard Wagner (T-H-L-K-D) I had the advantage of the article being written by some knowledgeable mature adults. I was also happy to acknowledge that Smerus (T-C-L-K-R-D) has a doctorate in a related subject. I therefore concentrated on proof-reading and on what was necessary to meet the GA criteria but was able to notice factual errors and could still do things such as rebalancing the lede. Whilst a lot of what I did was gnomish, I also took the role of a more conventional second author in being able to comment on the whole and adapt it.

Now, if I was to wade into a subject like the politics of Northern Ireland, I would find that it has so many watchers who have been brainwashed since birth into thinking one particular perspective is the one and only right one that it would be impossible to work productively. And many of them would resist change for political reasons how many reliable sources I produced. In the I/P area I have experienced and observed far too much nonsense of that sort. In articles on food items such baklava (T-H-L-K-D), hummus (T-H-L-K-D), falafel (T-H-L-K-D) various nationalists of different hues interfere so that any good article would be likely to degrade in the face of nonsense.

So many content developers have learnt to keep away from existing articles and work on their own stuff. But if Malleus were ever to change his views on further participation, then I would be happy to take up a long-standing offer he made askign for a collaborator to make ferret (T-H-L-K-D) a GA or better.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:59pm) *

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Mon 26th December 2011, 6:33pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 5:13pm) *

Wikipedia's treatment of valued contributors reminds to me a Russian poem (sorry for my translation)
QUOTE
Nuggets are thrown off a cliff,
Our gold is dullness.
We need no talents,
we only need dullness.



Good quote. Very Russian. I can imagine Shostakovitch or Mussorgsky setting it for bass voice.

You would laugh, but this "very Russian" quote, and it is Russian, was taken from a poem about Robert Kennedy, it was USA the author wrote about that they do not need talents.

Of course this author could not have written such poem about Soviet Union without risking being send to a mental hospital, but knowing this author, I am sure this poem was about Soviet Union much more than it was about USA. In Soviet Union every smart person was able to read between the lines. This ability often helped us to cope with the regime.


The year before JFK's death Shostakovitch did set some similar material in his Symphony No. 13 (Shostakovich) (T-H-L-K-D) but that was during the Kruschev thaw and still got criticised. By the time that Bobby was shot, it was the Brezhnev era.

Posted by: Ottava

People who don't work on the encyclopedia have no business there. That should be rule number one and, if enforced, 80% of the people would be instantly banned and the rest would be sorted out.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th December 2011, 7:33pm) *

People who don't work on the encyclopedia have no business there. That should be rule number one and, if enforced, 80% of the people would be instantly banned and the rest would be sorted out.

Dumping all the administrators and removing the God-king's rights would be a start, but that's obviously not going to happen any time soon.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:00am) *
Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good"). Wikipedia isn't about educating poor children in Africa or anywhere else, or even about knowledge generally. No, indeed, the main mission of Wikipedia is spreading WikiLove.

Yep. They don't care about anything but maintaining the illusion of an "encyclopedia", while they
wargame in the background. They've got 3.8 million articles, mostly crap with a few good bits,
and they've got the nerd-culture drivel that keeps the nerds coming back. So it's no wonder they
don't give a hang about "commentary" or "criticism" or even "facts".

Like Facebook, they're "invincible". (So they fool themselves.)

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 26th December 2011, 2:49pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:00am) *
Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good"). Wikipedia isn't about educating poor children in Africa or anywhere else, or even about knowledge generally. No, indeed, the main mission of Wikipedia is spreading WikiLove.

Yep. They don't care about anything but maintaining the illusion of an "encyclopedia", while they
wargame in the background. They've got 3.8 million articles, mostly crap with a few good bits,
and they've got the nerd-culture drivel that keeps the nerds coming back. So it's no wonder they
don't give a hang about "commentary" or "criticism" or even "facts".

Like Facebook, they're "invincible". (So they fool themselves.)


Thats right, Wikipedia is just a MMORPG. The little good that Wiki gives back is overshadowed the massive amount of evil it spreads all over the internet. Between the Lies, Defamation, The flooding the internet and chocking it with Misinformation. The Wikipedia as show it's unworkable model and should be scraped.

Below is a mental picture of what I think of House of Wiki...

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 26th December 2011, 7:47pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th December 2011, 7:33pm) *

People who don't work on the encyclopedia have no business there. That should be rule number one and, if enforced, 80% of the people would be instantly banned and the rest would be sorted out.

Dumping all the administrators and removing the God-king's rights would be a start, but that's obviously not going to happen any time soon.

Malleus, in the last few days you commented on jimbo in a different threads here, at WR. Could you please tell me, if you ever made a similar comments about jimbo on wiki? If so, could you please link to them, if not, why not?
Thanks.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 26th December 2011, 1:47pm) *

Dumping all the administrators and removing the God-king's rights would be a start, but that's obviously not going to happen any time soon.


And then what?

"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them."

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 9:29pm) *
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them."

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.
Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:11pm) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 9:29pm) *
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them."

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.
Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".


Right. But throwing out the entire lot of them, as Malleus is suggesting, isn't going to help either.

You can't really say "all admins are bad," especially when by Wikipedia terms, what they're doing is exactly what's expected. If you change the responsibilities, you change the expectations. Until then, no point in blaming volunteers for doing what they want to with no supervision.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 9:29pm) *
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them."

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.
Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".

I could have lived with administrators that are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".
I cannot live with administrators who block valued contributors to satisfy the trolls and the hounds.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 26th December 2011, 11:28pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:11am) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 9:29pm) *
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them."

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.
Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".

I could have lived with administrators that are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".
I cannot live with administrators who block valued contributors to satisfy the trolls and the hounds.


What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:29pm) *

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.



I thought Mr. Kohs was Batman.... or was I not supposed to tell everyone that?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 26th December 2011, 11:36pm) *

QUOTE(jd turk @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:29pm) *

Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution.



I thought Mr. Kohs was Batman.... or was I not supposed to tell everyone that?


Alfred, you can stop folding my t-shirts. They're on to us.

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 26th December 2011, 10:34pm) *

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


Nicely put.

Who's the best "valued contributor" who's not also a drama magnet? Because generally speaking by saying one, we're implying the other. No one is described as a "quality content contributor" unless it's in relation to the amount of disruption surrounding them (whether their fault or that of other editors).


Posted by: Wikifan

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.

secondly, who the hell is Malleus? And if he is such an awesome fuck, can his contributions be enumerated (mathematically) to show he is actually more valuable than a dozen or a "hundred" admins? Seems very hyperbolic.

Difficult to edit when users create a climate of hostility, and calling another user a cunt is pathetic. I imagine that person banging their head on the keyboard in a fit of rage.

wikipedia isn't going anywhere. if you can't deal with some internet asshole without using profanity against the rules then perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time.


Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:42am) *

wikipedia isn't going anywhere. if you can't deal with some internet asshole without using profanity against the rules then perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time.

You assume that profanity is bad. Some people use the term "cunt" often and very loosely, and to them it might not be much more than "bastard" or "dumbass" or whatever people call each other these days. Just because Malleus thinks someone is a cunt doesn't mean he's bashing his head into a keyboard out of frustration.

It's difficult to do a lot of things when users create a of hostility, but that can't always be bad, otherwise, why does WR bother existing?

Posted by: jd turk

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:00am) *

You assume that profanity is bad. Some people use the term "cunt" often and very loosely, and to them it might not be much more than "bastard" or "dumbass" or whatever people call each other these days. Just because Malleus thinks someone is a cunt doesn't mean he's bashing his head into a keyboard out of frustration.


I see this line of reasoning on WP used as well, and no offense, but it makes no sense.

Malleus used words he knew would be inflammatory. Whether it's "cunt," or "asshole," or "Cubs fan," or whatever, he used it knowing full well it would be taken in an aggressive manner. And when it was pointed out to him it could be taken that way, I don't recall seeing any kind of apology. If I missed it I apologize, but all I've seen is basically "it doesn't mean what you think it does, so fuck off, cunts."

Whatever the word used happened to be, it was used for a certain purpose and there doesn't seem to be any regret it was taken in a hateful manner. Disagreement over the exact connotation of the term doesn't excuse the intent, or the lack of regret if it was taken incorrectly.

It's all a part of the "Valued Content Contributors Circle of Drama."

Posted by: Wikifan

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 27th December 2011, 6:00am) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:42am) *

wikipedia isn't going anywhere. if you can't deal with some internet asshole without using profanity against the rules then perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time.

You assume that profanity is bad. Some people use the term "cunt" often and very loosely, and to them it might not be much more than "bastard" or "dumbass" or whatever people call each other these days. Just because Malleus thinks someone is a cunt doesn't mean he's bashing his head into a keyboard out of frustration.

It's difficult to do a lot of things when users create a of hostility, but that can't always be bad, otherwise, why does WR bother existing?


that's total bullshit. we all know what cunt means and it doesn't mean bastard or dumbass, it means cunt.

nobody can read mallaeus' mind. if he intended to call someone a dumbass, he should have said "dumbass", and not cunt which is considered to be one of the most offensive words in the english language. and in any case, when editors are using that kind of language it is fair to assume there is a much deeper behavioral problem. if his only violation was a bad word, that by itself isn't such a huge deal. he'd probably get hit with a block of some kind.

anything beyond that and it is cruel and unusual punishment.


Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,
and my response to it is a very good example of what I should not have done:responding to trolls = feeding the trolls.

Generally speaking I have never seen any valued contributor who was a troll and/or a hound.

Posted by: Vigilant

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:49pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,
and my response to it is a very good example of what I should not have done:responding to trolls = feeding the trolls.

Generally speaking I have never seen any valued contributor who was a troll and/or a hound.


In 10 seconds:
Giano
Malleus
SandyGeorgia
SlimVirgin
Durova
Ottava Rima

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:18pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:49pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,
and my response to it is a very good example of what I should not have done:responding to trolls = feeding the trolls.

Generally speaking I have never seen any valued contributor who was a troll and/or a hound.


In 10 seconds:
Giano
Malleus
SandyGeorgia
SlimVirgin
Durova
Ottava Rima

I see no differences.
Being rude # being troll and/or hound
Socking # being troll and/or hound
abusing admin tools is not always equals being trolls and/or hounds

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:18pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:49pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,
and my response to it is a very good example of what I should not have done:responding to trolls = feeding the trolls.

Generally speaking I have never seen any valued contributor who was a troll and/or a hound.


In 10 seconds:
Giano
Malleus
SandyGeorgia
SlimVirgin
Durova
Ottava Rima


If some quiet article-writer like User:Sasata (T-H-L-K-D) called someone a cunt, would as much drama erupt?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:29pm) *

If some quiet article-writer like User:Sasata (T-H-L-K-D) called someone a cunt, would as much drama erupt?


Why would someone who mainly writes on fungal taxa need to call anyone a cunt? It's somewhat different when you are trying to persuade some Randy from Boise that the Dark Ages really did exist, together with their dates, or that Ken Wilber is not in fact a philosopher. Look for the areas where Randy and friends hang out, and you will find 'cunts' galore.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:29pm) *

QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:18pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:49pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,
and my response to it is a very good example of what I should not have done:responding to trolls = feeding the trolls.

Generally speaking I have never seen any valued contributor who was a troll and/or a hound.


In 10 seconds:
Giano
Malleus
SandyGeorgia
SlimVirgin
Durova
Ottava Rima


If some quiet article-writer like User:Sasata (T-H-L-K-D) called someone a cunt, would as much drama erupt?


Probably not, but is this Malleus who is guilty of initiating the drama? He only used the word. Drama was started and fed up by others.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


Difficult to edit when users create a climate of hostility, and calling another user a cunt is pathetic. I imagine that person banging their head on the keyboard in a fit of rage.



I see nothing wrong in calling someone a cunt... if in fact they are one, or are behaving like one.

One someone is pissing you off and you have to remain civil then any reply you give is just the passive-aggressive equivalent. Say it how it is is the only way to go, then at least people know exactly what you mean, and there are no misunderstandings.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:48pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 5:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


Difficult to edit when users create a climate of hostility, and calling another user a cunt is pathetic. I imagine that person banging their head on the keyboard in a fit of rage.



I see nothing wrong in calling someone a cunt... if in fact they are one, or are behaving like one.

One someone is pissing you off and you have to remain civil then any reply you give is just the passive-aggressive equivalent. Say it how it is is the only way to go, then at least people know exactly what you mean, and there are no misunderstandings.

I probably agree with this. I believe it is more honest to say what you think in an open than to troll, make false accusations and hound a person.

Posted by: Peter Damian

There has been a lot of discussion about Malleus and his use of the c-word. Perhaps we can glance at the edit which occasioned all this drama.

QUOTE

We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)" [1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=466966253
[/url]


Then the block hammer fell. Two points: the context of use. (1) There is a frivolous and a serious use of the c-word in English. The first, as in 'you silly c--t' is trivial and affectionate. The second, as here, is used to signify deep moral error, even evil, or hatred of evil. (2) The remark was at an RfA, which for the earnest type of Wikipedian is a sort of cathedral or deeply hallowed ground, where the chosen ones are anointed by a 'bureaucrat' who is something like Zadok the priest.

Thus, Malleus' action was something akin to calling Queen Elizabeth a foul name during her coronation at Westminster Abbey in 1953, or whenever it was. No wonder the Wikipedians want to burn him at the stake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLN1kREJ2Q&t=5m10s

He added the following explanation shortly after


QUOTE
I would be very happy to provide examples, and I'm rather puzzled that you appear not to understand the difference between an honest cunt and a dishonest cunt. They're both cunts, but one believes (s)he's defending Wkipedia, whereas the other is just a self-important wanker. Is that clearer? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 06:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 27th December 2011, 11:36am) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 27th December 2011, 4:29pm) *

If some quiet article-writer like User:Sasata (T-H-L-K-D) called someone a cunt, would as much drama erupt?


Why would someone who mainly writes on fungal taxa need to call anyone a cunt? It's somewhat different when you are trying to persuade some Randy from Boise that the Dark Ages really did exist, together with their dates, or that Ken Wilber is not in fact a philosopher. Look for the areas where Randy and friends hang out, and you will find 'cunts' galore.


Perhaps someday, Randy from Boise remembers the time he and some fellow Boiseans bought some weak schrooms from those shifty folk down in Cheyenne. He will decide to go edit Psilocybin (T-H-L-K-D) and talk about how its high ain't so great after all. It will only be a matter of time before the quiet Mr. Sasata drops a c-bomb in frustration, then gets blocked for "biting the newbies".

Posted by: gomi

[Modnote: Off-topic thread about (anti-)Americanism split to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35963.]

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

As my comment to get back on topic got mixed in with the anti-American sub-thread I'll replicate it here.

In response to the thread title:

Indubitably. Yes, valued contributors should be treated differently. Isn't that how good CEO acquisition is achieved? You give the honey to the best of the best so that they will join your venture.

Give valued contributors the honey and it will attract more valued contributors. Basic psychology isn't it?

Sooner or later you end up with more VCs than cunts, PoV-pushers and power hungry admins. Speaker of the latter, self-nominated RfAs should be banned. The best admins are those that don't really want the job.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic) *


I see nothing wrong in calling someone a cunt... if in fact they are one, or are behaving like one.

One someone is pissing you off and you have to remain civil then any reply you give is just the passive-aggressive equivalent.
You have a point. Some "valued contributors" have elevated that tactic almost to an art form.

Posted by: that one guy

I think "valued contributers" (sic) is a loaded statement. What determines "valued"? One could argue Malleus is due to the sheer amount of mainspace work he does. But here's the catch: for every Malleus, Giano, Bugs, etc there's probably another editor in the wings adding content and not causing drama. The only reason that Malleus, Giano, and the like are "big name editors" are because they're attention whores. They want to get more credit than their name in the edit history so they stir shit up so people will go "WE CAN'T BLOCK THEM, LOOK AT THE WORK THEY'VE DONE!" while they get to sit back and watch the drama erupt over them. It's pathetic and only gives incentive for others to try. It's no better to me than an admin who brags about how many blocks they've made because it makes their e-peen feel huge.

And yes Ottava, this includes you.

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(that one guy @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:39pm) *

It's no better to me than an admin who flouts their block log length because it makes their e-peen feel huge.

I couldn't make out what you meant there. Do you mean flaunts not flouts?
QUOTE

And yes Ottava, this includes you.

+1

Posted by: that one guy

QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(that one guy @ Wed 28th December 2011, 3:39pm) *

It's no better to me than an admin who flouts their block log length because it makes their e-peen feel huge.

I couldn't make out what you meant there. Do you mean flaunts not flouts?
QUOTE

And yes Ottava, this includes you.

+1


Thanks, and I adjusted the wording to be more clear. (after I made this post anyway)

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 10:49am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,


Do we really still need diffs to show your assholish behavior, Mila? I think you've reached a level of wiki-infamy where your antics are common knowledge by now.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 29th December 2011, 3:49am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 27th December 2011, 10:49am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 27th December 2011, 3:29pm) *

QUOTE(Wikifan @ Tue 27th December 2011, 12:42am) *

QUOTE

What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds?


this.


You do realize that my statement was about Mila, right?

Well,if your "statement" was about me, is a good example of your usual trolling with not a single fucking difference to confirm it,


Do we really still need diffs to show your assholish behavior, Mila? I think you've reached a level of wiki-infamy where your antics are common knowledge by now.



QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 10th April 2011, 1:29pm) *

Hey, I am an asshole, I do not shy away from that at all. smile.gif


Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.

I should admit, tarc, that at one point a few days ago for whatever reason I thought that I am starting seeing something human in you. I was mistaking. you were, are, and always will be a dirty troll, and a very stinky self-admitted asshole, and with this you are added to my ignore users list.

Posted by: Wikifan

QUOTE
Do we really still need diffs to show your assholish behavior, Mila? I think you've reached a level of wiki-infamy where your antics are common knowledge by now.



get bent tarc. just because editors have failed to send your ass to AE doesn't mean you're less of a douche.

not everyone has the time like nableezy. wikipedia is his fucking life.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:33pm) *
Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.


The difference between you and me is that, while we both may be assholes, you pretend that you are not. Its like the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to sex scandals. Politicians from both parties get embroiled in them, but it is the Republicans that come off more hypocritical given their staunch stances on family values.


QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:37pm) *

QUOTE
Do we really still need diffs to show your assholish behavior, Mila? I think you've reached a level of wiki-infamy where your antics are common knowledge by now.



get bent tarc. just because editors have failed to send your ass to AE doesn't mean you're less of a douche.


I guess this means I'm off the Christmas Hanukkah card list for next year? evilgrin.gif

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:33pm) *

Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.

I should admit, tarc, that at one point a few days ago for whatever reason I thought that I am starting seeing something human in you. I was mistaking. you were, are, and always will be a dirty troll, and a very stinky self-admitted asshole, and with this you are added to my ignore users list.


Tarc is not human, he's a has a Tumor-like growth in his head, and it causes him to become this living dead zombie troll.

Besides, Tarc can't help himself, The Tumor forces him to warp his lips around Jimmy's love pump and sucks Jimbo juice in order to feed the Tumor and his love for Wiki. Tarc is typical of the Classs of ASSHOLE that swims in the rotten cesspool of lies, deceit, defamation, Miss-information, and other low brown shite, that Wikipedia is now serving up these days.

This and a million more reason why Wikipeidia is a FAILED PROJECT!!!! The World need to stop believing in the Shit the pours out of JIMMBO mouth, and start to take notice of the real fruits of the Wikipeidia. The test is..."... Would the world (internet) be better off with or without Wiki...?" Well, we all know that answer.

The best place to begin is to stop the money and to challenge Wiki's 501©(3) status and continue to point out the Brown waste (see the black anus pic) Wiki is all about.


Posted by: Wikifan

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 29th December 2011, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:33pm) *
Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.


The difference between you and me is that, while we both may be assholes, you pretend that you are not. Its like the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to sex scandals. Politicians from both parties get embroiled in them, but it is the Republicans that come off more hypocritical given their staunch stances on family values.


QUOTE(Wikifan @ Wed 28th December 2011, 11:37pm) *

QUOTE
Do we really still need diffs to show your assholish behavior, Mila? I think you've reached a level of wiki-infamy where your antics are common knowledge by now.



get bent tarc. just because editors have failed to send your ass to AE doesn't mean you're less of a douche.


I guess this means I'm off the Christmas Hanukkah card list for next year? evilgrin.gif


dont celebrate commercial holidays.

like i said, get bent.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence&oldid=468352853#Evidence_presented_by_Balloonman

QUOTE
Malleus can be an ass (or as he prefers arse.) That is not to say that he is one, but rather he acts like one. He can be one of the rudest most demeaning users. He scorns NPA and CIVIL.
Malleus can also be one of the most helpful users on Wikipedia. I have never seen him turn down a request for help---although it might simply be a high level review.
Malleus is clearly in the top 1% of users here at Wikipedia. Both for the good and ill. He is one of the best editors/reviewers we have---and is worth a 100 of the rest of us.
Malleus is smart enough to know that his actions/words inflame situations and tend to bait specific responses.
Malleus particularly likes to cast dispersions about the admin core.
That being said, most of the individual blocks against him are frivilous. I've tended to side with Malleus when he is blocked because individually the cases lack merit.
While I believe the specific incidents resulting in blocks have been weak, there is an inexplicable history of abuse and incivility coming from Malleus that can’t be ignored.
At the same time, the loss of Malleus to the project would be a serious one as his value to Wikipedia equaled only by a handful. Which I hope doesn't happen.


Is it only me, but did the above quote remind to somebody else this song?
QUOTE
She climbs a tree and scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear
She waltzes on her way to Mass
And whistles on the stair
And underneath her wimple
She has curlers in her hair
I even heard her singing in the abbey

She's always late for chapel
But her penitence is real
She's always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Maria's not an asset to the abbey

I'd like to say a word in her behalf
Maria makes me laugh

Posted by: victim of censorship

Is it only me, but did the above quote remind to somebody else this song?

QUOTE
She climbs a tree and scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear
She waltzes on her way to Mass
And whistles on the stair
And underneath her wimple
She has curlers in her hair
I even heard her singing in the abbey

She's always late for chapel
But her penitence is real
She's always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Maria's not an asset to the abbey

I'd like to say a word in her behalf
Maria makes me laugh



BTW, A little Hollywood Trivia.... Mary Martin was Larry Hagman's mother ( Larry Hagman play Capt Nelson in "I Dream of Jeane" and JR in "Dallas")

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:47pm) *

Is it only me, but did the above quote remind to somebody else this song?
QUOTE
She climbs a tree and scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear
She waltzes on her way to Mass
And whistles on the stair
And underneath her wimple
She has curlers in her hair
I even heard her singing in the abbey

She's always late for chapel
But her penitence is real
She's always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Maria's not an asset to the abbey

I'd like to say a word in her behalf
Maria makes me laugh



BTW, A little Hollywood Trivia.... Mary Martin was Larry Hagman's mother ( Larry Hagman play Capt Nelson in "I Dream of Jeane" and JR in "Dallas")


Thank yo! I always forget about the power of youtube.
Let's then make it a video



Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:33pm) *

Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.

I should admit, tarc, that at one point a few days ago for whatever reason I thought that I am starting seeing something human in you. I was mistaking. you were, are, and always will be a dirty troll, and a very stinky self-admitted asshole, and with this you are added to my ignore users list.


Tarc is not human, he's a has a Tumor-like growth in his head, and it causes him to become this living dead zombie troll.

Besides, Tarc can't help himself, The Tumor forces him to warp his lips around Jimmy's love pump and sucks Jimbo juice in order to feed the Tumor and his love for Wiki. Tarc is typical of the Classs of ASSHOLE that swims in the rotten cesspool of lies, deceit, defamation, Miss-information, and other low brown shite, that Wikipedia is now serving up these days.


JoJo! I actually almost missed your 3rd-grade level invective. Welcome back, buddy.

QUOTE
This and a million more reason why Wikipeidia is a FAILED PROJECT!!!! The World need to stop believing in the Shit the pours out of JIMMBO mouth, and start to take notice of the real fruits of the Wikipeidia. The test is..."... Would the world (internet) be better off with or without Wiki...?" Well, we all know that answer.

The best place to begin is to stop the money and to challenge Wiki's 501©(3) status and continue to point out the Brown waste (see the black anus pic) Wiki is all about.


At one time you used to brag quite a bit how you had an inside line with Congressional type people and such, about attacking the WMF's 501 status. Can you give us an update?


Posted by: Eppur si muove

WRers who are confused about how certain words are used in male English working-class vernacular might find http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/10/anton-ferdinand-john-terry-racist-video/ useful. The dialogue is perfectly realistic.

It isn't just the working class who swear. The toffs do it too. It is just the middle class who hold their noses.

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 29th December 2011, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Thu 29th December 2011, 11:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 28th December 2011, 10:33pm) *

Well, if a self-admitted asshole alleges that my behavior was "assholish" it means that I probably was very good.

I should admit, tarc, that at one point a few days ago for whatever reason I thought that I am starting seeing something human in you. I was mistaking. you were, are, and always will be a dirty troll, and a very stinky self-admitted asshole, and with this you are added to my ignore users list.


Tarc is not human, he's a has a Tumor-like growth in his head, and it causes him to become this living dead zombie troll.

Besides, Tarc can't help himself, The Tumor forces him to warp his lips around Jimmy's love pump and sucks Jimbo juice in order to feed the Tumor and his love for Wiki. Tarc is typical of the Classs of ASSHOLE that swims in the rotten cesspool of lies, deceit, defamation, Miss-information, and other low brown shite, that Wikipedia is now serving up these days.


JoJo! I actually almost missed your 3rd-grade level invective. Welcome back, buddy.

QUOTE
This and a million more reason why Wikipeidia is a FAILED PROJECT!!!! The World need to stop believing in the Shit the pours out of JIMMBO mouth, and start to take notice of the real fruits of the Wikipeidia. The test is..."... Would the world (internet) be better off with or without Wiki...?" Well, we all know that answer.

The best place to begin is to stop the money and to challenge Wiki's 501©(3) status and continue to point out the Brown waste (see the black anus pic) Wiki is all about.


At one time you used to brag quite a bit how you had an inside line with Congressional type people and such, about attacking the WMF's 501 status. Can you give us an update?

Hey jagoff, that time is coming. You see. BTW, hows the protein injections you are getting from Jimmybo - polishing them knobs of all the Admins?. Just wondering.

Posted by: mbz1

http://www.economist.com/node/18007761#wikitweaks

QUOTE
WikiTweaks

SIR – Your take on the charges of elitism at Wikipedia struck a chord (“Wikipleadia”, January 15th). I have been a contributor since the summer of 2009, mostly to articles on race issues, and during this time I’ve seen several members quit the project. Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. One person said he had been accused of being a “nationalist”, a “racist”, a “POV-warrior”, a “troll”, a “conspirator”, a “sockpuppet” and a “meatpuppet”.

The basic problem is that without a system of checks and balances, Wikipedia cannot ensure that people who hold minority viewpoints are treated fairly. Although Jimmy Wales is still the titular head, nearly all decisions about individual disputes are made either by the community, by administrators who are elected by a vote in the community, or by a group of high-level administrators known as ArbCom, who are also elected. The surest way for administrators and ArbCom to retain their positions is to appeal to popular sentiment among the ordinary members. By doing so they drive away members who might have voted against them.

This self-sustaining cycle of bias, the decline in participation and Mr Wales’s gradual delegation of authority to the community and to ArbCom have all occurred since 2007. He now needs to introduce fundamental reform to the way Wikipedia’s community is managed.

Jonathan Kane
Belle Mead, New Jersey

Posted by: Maetu

I would say no. Only because we have no idea what would happen with the other users. if users are getting to the point where they're driving other users out, making them uncomfortable or want to contribute less, then they need to go.

Over the years we've seen several users become AN/I legends for the amount of threads started because of the way they interacted with other users (often new users).

The rallying cry of "valued contributor" was made and the issue was swept under the rug countless times.

We can never know what would have happened if we'd sent them packing the time before. The latest new users they soured on the whole experience may have later turned out to be as good as them or better but minus the drama.

Every time they piss on someone they further increase the chances of that being the case.