Jimbo causes Blofeld to quit Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyway I'm done with posting on here.....

So, what would Brenda Vaccaro do in a situation like this?

[EricBarbour]

@Eric. You think I'm this OCD freak who can't bare to live without wikipedia. (tl:dr)

Thanks, for making my point for me.

[Somey]

If you truly could not give a shit about wikipedia, Jimbo or any of its pathetic contributors why do you give a shit to spend so much time commenting here? What motivates you to post here then? What exactly do you have to gain on here notching up 15,000 comments between you and being so unpleasant other than having some serious personality flaws and inability to communicate with others in a half decent manner without attacking them or being sarcastic?

Where did you get the idea that I/we "don't give a shit" about Wikipedia, Jimbo, et al? I think you're making that up. If we didn't think it was such a menace to world culture, civilized discourse, education, and society in general, then maybe we would have stopped bothering long ago. "We're here because we care"...

As for you being this "successful businessman" Eric and wikipedia contributors "suffering", I hardly get the impression of you having much success if that blog is all you have to brag about.

I suspect you're only saying that because you don't appreciate all the hard work that goes into building popular guitar-distortion stomp-boxes with all-vacuum-tube circuitry that are covered with vaguely obscene cartoon imagery.

Regardless, this is "classic" stuff, reaction-wise. I'm sorry to have to say it, but a non-narcissist understands the difference between one or two people in a group bashing him and everyone in the group bashing him, and (not coincidentally) that's how the non-narcissist copes with being bashed. There's less need to bolster the ego-facade because the ego-facade isn't based on what other people think, at least not as much, nor is it based on a self-image of near-perfection supported by elaborately exaggerated claims of ability and experience.

You're probably not a bad person, maybe not even close - but I believe that if you had those things, you would never have gotten involved in Wikipedia in the first place, or certainly not to anywhere near the extent you have.

[EricBarbour]

Well said. Thank you.

All I want to see is for Blofeld to admit he was possibly wrong;
that at least some of the thousands of hours he spent editing WP may have been a waste of time.
And maybe even that Jimbo isn't the Gandhi of Huntsville.

Not much to ask. But instead I get ad-hominem abuse.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 11th February 2011, 8:56pm

[Malleus]

Not much to ask. But instead I get ad-hominem abuse.

Is there any other kind? It's arguments that are described as ad hominem, not abuse.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 11th February 2011, 9:16pm

[Ottava]

Well I learned classical piano from age of 7-14 I think. But I never learned to play without music until recently. Yeah I love Chopin, absolute genius. Easily my favourite composer. Ballade no.1 is possibly the most astounding piece I've ever heard in terms of technical quality. Who plays it best, mmm I'd say Zimmerman just edges Horowitz on that one. Liszt and Bach are also my favourites. Admittedly Mozart doesn't really do it for me, I prefer Beethoven. For somebody who never used to like classical and was solely a rock fan for many years I've come to appreciate it in recent times. A lot of classical music doesn't float my boat and a lot of jazz I find too avant garde. I generally like very melodic "emotional" sort of music.

La Pianista would probably lurve you, fyi. You should come to IRC sometime and say hi to her. She is a piano fiend.

[A User]

You're probably not a bad person, maybe not even close - but I believe that if you had those things, you would never have gotten involved in Wikipedia in the first place, or certainly not to anywhere near the extent you have.

Not speaking for Blowie but people all make mistakes Somey. If I had my time again from 2001, I would never had contributed any articles to Wikipedia that's for sure.

[Dr. Blofeld]

Oh I've admitted I've spent way too much time on wikipedia and have certainly wasted my time with lots of articles on there and people. a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors. b] Its a waste of time having to explain myself to people who complain or try to delete things without bothering to do the research. c] Its a waste of time questioning the behaviour of admins or objecting and complaining as they always get their way, being Jimbo's allegiance. I'm proud of the good work I've done on wikipedia and don't see a problem with wanting to improve it. I actually enjoy writing articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh for example. My articles like Clint Eastwood etc are read by thousands of people every day and a lot of people have benefited from the information in the articles I've written. It is a shame of course that we personally don't receive any compensation for editing which is the biggest issue I think. If I thought the project as a whole was a waste of time I would never have contributed, I think it has massive potential. But I think unless the foundation give incentives to certain editors to edit/improve untouched/stale topics then it will remain very uneven in quality. I think most of us can agree here that Jimbo is not the ideal leader of wikipedia and it sucks that people do the work and he reaps the financial benefits. But wikipedia does have a great deal to offer from a learning point, even if it is severely lacking in many areas and most articles need improvement. But at the end of the day its just a website and I've spent way too much time on there.. Should I feel like returning in the future I will certainly try to reduce my input and time spent on the project and concentrate on things that bring me personal benefit...

[Dr. Blofeld]

On a positive note, Eric, have U2 and that really used the Scrotum smasher? I think that's awesome!! Although personally I would prefer to kick The Edge in the balls myself for being so impertinent as to wear a hat indoors and during the hot summer.... LOL :

PS looks like Dave Brubeck.

[Dr. Blofeld]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PTrTOgas4PE/S-9W..._b%26wHiRes.jpg

[Ottava]

But I think unless the foundation give incentives to certain editors to edit/improve untouched/stale topics then it will remain very uneven in quality.

Oh, but they do - a Board Member proxied for a banned user to put up two pages on some of the most important poems in the English language that had stubs before.

[Dr. Blofeld]

Well, that is something.....

[EricBarbour]

On a positive note, Eric, have U2 and that really used the Scrotum smasher?

Okay, I'll humor you. Yes, U2 bought a huge pile of stuff a few years ago. Dunno what they did with it.

Trent Reznor is still a big fan--buys everything we make the instant it hits the dealer's shelf.
Listen to recent NIN albums like Ghosts and The Slip, plus things he produces for
others, like Saul Williams's album Niggy Tardust--they are all full of Metasonix noises.
And this guy is obsessed with our products.

The Butt Probe is old history. We're working on a new pedal this year.

It's all vaudeville. Musicians are fond of being insulted, believe it or not--because almost all other gear
manufacturers cater to their insecurities, and also tend to copy each other's designs, thus all sounding
the same as each other. So much cowardice. Just by being a bit rude and an innovator, you can get attention.

Metasonix is now so famous we don't have to do any substantial advertising--we just put out a new product, and people talk about it and buy it.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 14th February 2011, 1:52am

[Somey]

Dr. B, I'll be frank with you and I hope you don't take it too personally. For the most part, we're saying "Wikipedia is a waste of your time" because we believe that any other approach won't really appeal to you. What people like me (and I would venture to say a few others in this thread) would rather be saying is, "look at how these activities of yours have affected others" - and in fact, this is the approach we took before you registered here. You could say that we're just trying to be nice, but that's a whole 'nother issue, really.

Let's take the three points you've made above:

a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors.

This, in particular, demonstrates an exceptionally self-serving, and almost blinkered, mindset. Red links are what keeps Wikipedia alive, because they attract new users. (If you can stomach the Blofeld-bashing, read this thread, esp. starting here.) Stubs don't attract new users at all. This is exactly why Jimbo dislikes you, because recruitment (and to a lesser extent, retention) is his primary concern, as would be true of any cult leader/figurehead.

b] Its a waste of time having to explain myself to people who complain or try to delete things without bothering to do the research.

And yet, the more articles you create, the more responsibility you give yourself for having to explain precisely those things. And if someone challenges you and you don't explain yourself, even when the person has no idea what he's talking about, you come off as hostile, opening yourself up for a civility/behavior violation. I believe this has already happened, in fact.

c] Its a waste of time questioning the behaviour of admins or objecting and complaining as they always get their way, being Jimbo's allegiance.

Personally, I wouldn't give Jimbo so much credit when it comes to supporting admin behavior. They're perfectly capable of circling their own wagons, with or without Jimbo to help them. What I think you have to ask yourself is, have you ever involved yourself in a situation in which an admin acted abusively, but that didn't already involve you intrinsically? In other words, a dispute (or whatever) that occurred on an article or topic area you never touched or had anything to do with? Or have you been worried that you'd be seen as a "busybody" and lose valuable goodwill points with the other admins?

The thing you can learn from someone like Eric Barbour, IMO, is not merely that a person can make a decent living by building signal-processing gear with vacuum tube technology in boxes emblazoned with obscenities. Rather, it's that there are people in the world who can say "I don't really care what other people think of me," and actually mean it, and still succeed in spite of that. It's not easy, but you could be that way too - I mean, why not? Moreover, when you don't care what other people think of you, your definition of "success" usually changes to something a lot more manageable and attainable.

It is a shame of course that we personally don't receive any compensation for editing which is the biggest issue I think.

And yet it's clearly not the biggest issue from a more general perspective, because Wikipedia is already far larger and more extensive than any professionally-produced (and traditionally-published) informational reference, all without paying the actual editors a dime. This fact is used time and again to "prove" that crowdsourcing is the best (or at least fastest and cheapest) way to acquire encyclopedic content on a massive scale. Concerns about quality are easily dismissed by pointing would-be critics to the roughly 5 percent of articles that are actually good - and given the numbers, even 5 percent (between 100K and 200K articles) is far more than any one person could critique in any sort of coherent fashion.

[Ottava]

And yet, the more articles you create, the more responsibility you give yourself for having to explain precisely those things. And if someone challenges you and you don't explain yourself, even when the person has no idea what he's talking about, you come off as hostile, opening yourself up for a civility/behavior violation. I believe this has already happened, in fact.

And yet it's clearly not the biggest issue from a more general perspective, because Wikipedia is already far larger and more extensive than any professionally-produced (and traditionally-published) informational reference, all without paying the actual editors a dime.

In my field, if you get paid for editing it is a miracle. Just an fyi. That is why I have no qualms about producing content on wiki. The wider distribution and accessibility is also a bonus.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 14th February 2011, 10:10pm

[KD Tries Again]

There are much less wealthy online operations than Wikipedia actually paying editors and contributors. Wikipedia could be improved immeasurably if editors and/or contributors, screened for basic competence, were paid for their contributions (and subject, therefore, to some kind of serious management).

But of course that means recognizing that, while anyone "can" edit, not everyone should.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again: Mon 14th February 2011, 11:55pm

[Malleus]

Let's take the three points you've made above:

a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors.

This, in particular, demonstrates an exceptionally self-serving, and almost blinkered, mindset. Red links are what keeps Wikipedia alive, because they attract new users. (If you can stomach the Blofeld-bashing, read this thread, esp. starting here.) Stubs don't attract new users at all. This is exactly why Jimbo dislikes you, because recruitment (and to a lesser extent, retention) is his primary concern, as would be true of any cult leader/figurehead.

I've been rather critical in the past of Dr. Blofeld's "micro-stubs", or rather the sheer volume of them, as most will never be anything more. But you do raise an interesting point; creating an article is far easier than expanding or improving one, but far more highly valued, presumably because of its perceived attraction to new editors.

[Dr. Blofeld]

Well I've always created new stubs on the basis that if you create new articles they stand a much better chance of being expanded and containing some info then if they didn't exist. I agree with pretty much what you said Somey but I'd have to say that the majority of minor wikipedia editors and ips feel the prospect of creating an account and starting a new article daunting and are either afraid of it being deleted or don't feel confident enough to do it. People who've supported my stubs in the past have said that at least I start the stubs consistently and cleanly which could reasonably be expanded by anybody (many sporadic new articles by newbies are often even worse in needing cleanup/categories reference fixing etc), in fact a number of editors have actually thanked me for batches I've started as it makes it easier for them to work off and wouldn't have done it otherwise. I think probably at least a thousand of stubs I've created are now full length or half decent content articles. Some like Xinjiang Medical University are surprise expansion ones. The truth though is the we don't have the amount of editors or interest to expand them ALL. So in principal unless the articles is expanded then at this moment in time it has been a waste of time... I'd have to say though Malleus that with the expection of some of the obscure "third world" villages the vast majority of stubs I start have some information on the Internet which could be added to them. For instance Burmese villages like Gwebin and Shwenyaungbin I started increasingly have info on them beyond the xxx is a stub. These are the valuable sort of articles I want us to have on parts of the world never covered in a general encyclopedia before and was my intention with any sub stubs i started that i want them written eventually. Of course I'd rather start the articles with knowledge like this but in the past I've been so aware of the scope of missing topics that I've tried to get them onto wikipedia, jeopardizing quality. Its finding a balance I think between starting new articles which are actually useful and contain some sentences of factual information and developing articles to GA quality. You'll find that most of my new articles in the last year or two have been useful stubs or start class articles, although I did create a lot of village stubs a while back.

Of course from a neutral point, quality and content is the most important thing. Of course there are problems with paid editing with multiple editors editing at the same time and potential squabbling over who is owed what etc but i think the articles which are core and nobody is improving and which REALLY need improving then I don't see why the foundation couldn't raise a certian amount each year to pay accomplished editors in certain fields a small amount to get the job done.

I think the most important things on wikipedia are a] increasing its scope and venture into poorly or uncovered areas of knowledge, like agricultural industries in African countries etc and b]Developing articles to GA level which have been reviewed and have been assessed as approved articles. It always comes down to the quality vs quanity thing. I agree I want every article to be GA but I've always found it difficult to ignore the vast topics which are not even started. Given that I don't have tine to write them all and given that wikipedia is visited by millions of people its my way of trying to do something towards it, and hoping that somebody can add to it later, which they often have but more noticeably have not... I believe I've mostly started articles which an encyclopedia of wikipedia's scale "should" have but we need more editors to help expand... That's why opinions of me and my intentions are divided is that some see the idea of promoting new topics and their long term potential and others like yourself Somey which regard the stubs as useless and a waste of time and creating a maintenance problem...

This post has been edited by Dr. Blofeld: Tue 15th February 2011, 1:01pm

[Dr. Blofeld]

Stubs don't attract new users at all. This is exactly why Jimbo dislikes you, because recruitment (and to a lesser extent, retention) is his primary concern, as would be true of any cult leader/figurehead.

I'd have to disagree with that though Somey and I'd say the reason why Jimbo doesn't like me is because I tell him what I think of him and the way the project is run and he doesn't like that or my sarcastic sense of humour on his talk page. Let's not forgot that I have written more decent articles that most people have on wikipedia too which attract a lot of visitors daily. I am certain that thousands of people have google searched for articles on major towns or their villages or films/actors and have found the wikipedia entry at the top and entrered the site. I think you are underestimating that at least some of the articles I've started have created new traffic. I'm certain of that. But I'd agree with you that the stub is by no means a way of actual getting these new visitors to join and build it.

This post has been edited by Dr. Blofeld: Tue 15th February 2011, 12:47pm

[Dr. Blofeld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Kiarostami

My first Featured Article.....

Probably worth 1000 stubs....