I Declare World Wiki War on Admin Anonymity, Enjoy my first Wikipedia User Identity List Options Rating

[FLIPSIDE]

I have been to many Wikipedia review sites now, and am less than enthused with the endless ball-lessness and lukewarm debate over the ethics over ending Wikipedia Administrative Anonymity. Out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia Review, I am not posting the names here, but I will give you the link to my first dedicated Information Bomb against Wikipedia. It is now my official mission to ruin Anonymity on Wikipedia. If anyone has anything useful to contribute, consider yourselves invited to contact me. I am currently only impressed by the work of Daniel Brandt and Judd Bagley, and observe that the various forums "critical" of Wikipedia are excessively staffed by Wikipedia Admins, as evidenced by their blistering wails (Wales?) whenever solid information comes out.

To whatever end, I now offer you the new WIKIPEDIA USER DATABASE at Haters Magazine

http://www.contextflexed.com/storywikipediaexposed.html

[bluevictim]

I don't really think one should have to have a degree, experience, or both. If one claims a degree or expertise, many people will trust them more if they edit articles in their field than someone who doesn't claim those things or someone who claims not to have them. I myself don't trust experts more (except for certain things), but since many others do, a user who claims a degree or expertise should state things that would prove it, such as a reference to their published, peer-reviewed report and/or a link to it on the web. The reference should be in the format Firstname Lastname, Publication (Year). lso, college records would be useful for their user page, if they saythey are an expert or a graduate and edit articles in their field. I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Edit: One, who are you talking to/about?
Edit2: Lar, I don't care whether it's self-published or not, it needs to be peer reviewed. Not necessarily by experts, because other people's points of view should be included in the Review too.

This post has been edited by bluevictim:

[FLIPSIDE]

I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Yes I do. And it *should* not matter -- if one can be reasonably expected to rise above superficial political beliefs and act in good faith.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

People should keep their real names out of Wikipedia flame wars. There should be no Wikipedia flame wars. I think it's called for to place a universal price tag on anonymous flaming. I agree with choosing targets. I have chosen the target of Wikipedia as transnational state or as Civ. The target was preselected from the onset of the project at MIT, and the first person kicked off Wikipedia back when it was a little blob at MIT became the first Troll/Sockpuppet of WP. I advocate a much less craven and much more firm and total alteration of the community over there as the first participant to officially be willing to Othello flip every single Wikipedian if necessary. It's not out of big headedness, it's out of determination to participate with will.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Amarkov]

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

[FLIPSIDE]

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

This post has been edited by FLIPSIDE:

[Milton Roe]

If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

It might be something else. One of the things it is, is an attempt to be an automatic writing machine for the benefit of Jimbo Wales, which extracts talent from the maximal number of brains, while deliberately encouraging them to be as masked and anonymous as possible, in order that the credit for their work shall not adhere to any of them, but will filter up to give glory to Jimbo.

You want to know one purpose of NPOV and NOR? To try to disguise the fact that any kind of writing is a creative and original act, which deserves credit intrinsically. At Wikipedia, they pretend that what's being done there is different, that it is completely unoriginal and sourced elsewhere, so that nobody can attempt to claim it. Originality is atomized, delocalized, denied, and deprecated. What's left is GFDL'd. Ordinary editors, which is to say content writers, are given no repect, and all power and authority is transferred to people who manage writers, as a farmer would manage cows who give milk.

You want to know why this setup harms people though biographizing them? That's mostly a side effect. If it's just an automatic writing machine for Jimbo, he can have all the credit without any responsibility. This much is like corporations and institutions everywhere (NASA managers no doubt see their engineers that way-- see decades of Dilbert Cartoons). Is a given Wiki article crappy? Don't blame Jimbo-- he didn't write it. Is it pretty good? Well, Thank Jimbo for setting up the software to create it. If the article happens to be a bio, well-- see above. The machine and overall product of it is far more important to Jimbo than any small bits which don't work out with the simple rules.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: