The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Statement from Jimbo re. Bauder/Forrester, From around Jan. 2006 ArbCom Elections
Alison
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:50am
Post #21


Skinny Cow!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined: Tue 26th Jun 2007, 8:08pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806



QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 11:32pm) *


{snip}

lollers - go Apple laugh.gif

But ewww - what a manky looking pint of beer blink.gif Looks like really flat Guinness
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:54am
Post #22


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 7:35pm) *
Lir confronts Jimbo on these appointments (for those unaware Lir is not Lar). Everyking chimes in, and well...it's about as blunt as I've ever seen Jimmy.


Almost brings a tear to my eye--he was so nice to me back then!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:25am
Post #23


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 6:35pm) *

Lir is not Lar
Understatement.
QUOTE
With the exception of the first half of 2005, James F has been on the Arbitration Committee since it's inception. It's also worth noting, that he has never won re-election, and has been appointed 3 times by Jimmy Wales by fiat.

I have to say that this is one of the most useful posts I've ever seen composed for this site. I'm bookmarking it. Thank you very much.

It speaks volumes about what Jimmy thinks is important for Wikipedia. His top Wikijudge is the tyrant of a supposedly supplementary IRC chat, with less than 1000 mainspace edits in the last three years, most of which are automated. Meanwhile, someone like Cla68 who does the mundane work of actually writing the damn encyclopedia should be "shot on sight" for resisting a now-proved sockpuppeteer who had influential friends.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:57am
Post #24


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



I think it would be a good idea to have a community push for all the ArbCom seats to go up for election in December, and throw out the staggered election system. The community seems to be at or approaching the level of maturity necessary to get behind an initiative like that, and annual re-election of all arbitrators would be a simple and effective way to improve the system.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ThurstonHowell3rd
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 8:50am
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu 6th Mar 2008, 11:24pm
Member No.: 5,302



QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 12:57am) *

I think it would be a good idea to have a community push for all the ArbCom seats to go up for election in December, and throw out the staggered election system. The community seems to be at or approaching the level of maturity necessary to get behind an initiative like that, and annual re-election of all arbitrators would be a simple and effective way to improve the system.

So what exactly would be the problem with the community rewriting the policies associated with Arbcom elections? Jimbo would be free to ignore these policies, but then it would be clear that he is acting against the will of the community.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vicky
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:01am
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon 4th Aug 2008, 5:41am
Member No.: 7,391



QUOTE(maiawatatos @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(Taxwoman @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 8:52pm) *

Charles I, a fairly harmless God-king


*Cough* star chamber *cough*

Neither of them were great, but for different reasons.

Oh, I'm not saying Charles I was a saint despite Royalist attempts to depict him as a blameless martyr. But he didn't go round smashing up churches and banning Christmas and the rest of it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:05am
Post #27


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(One @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 2:25am) *
It speaks volumes about what Jimmy thinks is important for Wikipedia. His top Wikijudge is the tyrant of a supposedly supplementary IRC chat, with less than 1000 mainspace edits in the last three years, most of which are automated.
James is also one of the strongest advocates for Jimbo's monarchial status, and views himself as having a vested right to rule as one of Jimbo's lord high commanders. As Jimbo's vassal, he views his duty as being toward Jimbo as his liege lord, rather than toward the community, as one might more properly expect. James holds the community in deep disdain and is frankly uninterested in what the community might care for.

I'm no advocate of giving the community everything they want, but at the same time James' attitude sometimes make Marie Antoinette seem like a social activist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Viridae
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:08am
Post #28


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am
Member No.: 1,498

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 4:32pm) *


Just noticed the anti Scientology tshirt on the left.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:10am
Post #29


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:08am) *
Just noticed the anti Scientology tshirt on the left.
Well, of course. That's a significant aspect of David Gerard's identity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 3:24pm
Post #30


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 1:34pm) *
Would Jimmy be subject to sanction (not joking--I'm being serious)?
It's entirely unclear, which is part of why I tried to create some sort of on-wiki policy about Jimmy's on-wiki authority (after first trying to get an answer from somebody at the Foundation about whether this authority was a Foundation matter or a community one). It wasn't an especially fruitful effort.

I'm a little slack on my British history, I'm afraid, which is hampering my enjoyment of this thread. But now I'm going to try real hard to see how the King-Byng crisis relates to Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:01pm
Post #31


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:10am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:08am) *
Just noticed the anti Scientology tshirt on the left.
Well, of course. That's a significant aspect of David Gerard's identity.

Hmmm. I noticed that WP does gets cited a lot over at Operation Clambake. I seriously wonder if Andreas Heldal-Lund (who has his own BLP, incidently) has any idea of all of the uncomfortable parallels between CO$ and WP. Not that wikipediots are quite as vicious as what scientos can be (yet).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:26pm
Post #32


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Oh they know about Wikipedia. They cite it because they wrote much of it.

I think that "Xenu," an article primarily written by anti-Scientologists with a COI, is possibly the most influential featured articles ever selected. The term got much more coverage after the article was written, and now average people know it and read about it on Wikipedia when they use Google. I recall some concerned members of other sects (Mormons, Moonies) opposed the nomination thinking that they might be the next target.. Nope. No largeish religious group is as reviled in the west.

NPOV is Popular POV on a good day, and so anti-Scientologists write lauded articles on Scientology.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:45pm
Post #33


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Cedric @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 2:01pm) *
Hmmm. I noticed that WP does gets cited a lot over at Operation Clambake. I seriously wonder if Andreas Heldal-Lund (who has his own BLP, incidently) has any idea of all of the uncomfortable parallels between CO$ and WP. Not that wikipediots are quite as vicious as what scientos can be (yet).
Since the same people who maintain Operation Clambake also wrote (and actively "own") virtually all of Wikipedia's content about Scientology, the frequent citation is not surprising. One of David Gerard's ongoing duties at Wikipedia is to ensure that anybody he identifies as a Scientologist is stalked and harassed off of the site with all deliberate haste.

It has long been observed that the anti-Scientologists are nearly as cultish as the Scientologists they oppose. This is probably, in part, because many of them are ex-Scientologists, and while they've been cured of Scientology specifically, they are not cured of their susceptibility to cultishness in general, and so readily succumb to the next cult they wander into, be it AntiScientologism, or Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Kelly Martin: Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rootology
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 8:37pm
Post #34


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined: Fri 26th Jan 2007, 11:11pm
Member No.: 877



The Xenu article's opening paragraph:

QUOTE
Xenu (also Xemu) (pronounced /ˈziːnuː/ or /ˈziːmuː/), according to Scientology founder (and speculative fiction writer) L. Ron Hubbard, was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[1] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.[2][3] Members of the Church of Scientology widely deny or try to hide the Xenu story.


That's a pretty accurate and neutral summary of the religion. That literally IS the core of the religion, akin to the stories of Jesus in relative scale. Compare to the first paragraph of Jesus:

QUOTE
Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE—26–36 AD/CE),[2][3] also known as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God. Islam considers Jesus a prophet, and several other religions also consider him an important figure.


Lose the last line about the COS trying to deny or hide the Xenu story (which they DO do) and it's apples and oranges. If it sounds POV and negative because it sounds like a bad episode of classic Star Trek, that's not anyone at Wikipedia's fault. Its "This is what this religious figure is," according to the internal Church canon. It's not Wikipedia's fault that Xenu is a step removed from a Gorn.

Image

This post has been edited by Rootology: Wed 3rd September 2008, 8:38pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:36pm
Post #35


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 8:37pm) *
That's a pretty accurate and neutral summary of the religion. That literally IS the core of the religion, akin to the stories of Jesus in relative scale. Compare to the first paragraph of Jesus:
...
Lose the last line about the COS trying to deny or hide the Xenu story (which they DO do) and it's apples and oranges. If it sounds POV and negative because it sounds like a bad episode of classic Star Trek, that's not anyone at Wikipedia's fault. Its "This is what this religious figure is," according to the internal Church canon. It's not Wikipedia's fault that Xenu is a step removed from a Gorn.

Jesus has fewer OR images generated on the computers of anti-Christians. It could, if it were a comparable article, feature a photoshopped Jesus walking on the water in the most ludicrous manner possible. The article for Jesus also doesn't quote Judas talking about how Jesus was on a steady diet of drugs and wine. For that matter, it isn't composed almost entirely from anti-Christian sources. But then, [[Jesus]] wasn't written by career anti-Christians.

Scientology is so hated that it all sounds perfectly neutral to many. In any other context such COI articles would look foolish. For example, I'm sure that Ralph Nader could write a facially neutral-sounding article on General Motors. He could probably create a very detailed article. Like anti-Scientologists, Nader has a deep memory of the organization and its flaws. But if we knew Nader was the author, I think we would look at it skeptically. I would, at least. I would be skeptical even though (as with Scientology) I would be much more sympathetic to the biased writer than the subject. I'm not sure why this doesn't skepticism apply to anti-Scientologists' work. Wikipedians just shrug or even blame the religion's weirdness for enabling such tawdry articles.

Don't get me wrong--they have exceptionally weird beliefs--but an impartial account by a comparative religion scholar would not resemble the sensationalistic articles on Wikipedia. But then, that's probably true for many subjects.

Milton Roe pointed out in another thread that there are articles for Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Mormonism, Islamophobia, and so forth, but no such article as Anti-Scientology.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 4th September 2008, 1:26am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Thu 4th September 2008, 12:58am
Post #36


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



I have no love for Scientology, but I think Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology is embarrassing. There is no hope of altering this, though, because the Scientology topics are closely monitored by a tightly-knit group of editors, and they have David Gerard covering their backs. David routinely checkusers anyone editing a Scientology article who steps away from the anti-Scientology line, and typically accuses him or her of being a sockpuppet of one of the identified Scientology "shills" from alt.religion.scientology. It's a great example of Wikipedia's inability to actually achieve "neutrality" on a contentious topic because advocates for one side of the topic have successfully infiltrated Wikipedia's community structure. Other topics that have been compromised in this manner include animal "rights", anything related to evolution, anything related to astrology or other "paranormal" topics, or anything about GLBT issues.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thebainer
post Wed 17th September 2008, 12:05am
Post #37


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 12:06pm
Member No.: 13

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 3rd September 2008, 6:34am) *

So honestly, what would happen if Jimmy did something Very Bad with or in regards to his en.wiki account, that led to someone processing a request against him? Would James F have to recuse, if he were still sitting? Would Jimmy be subject to sanction (not joking--I'm being serious)?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr_(Governor-General)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st 11 14, 7:31am