FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Moral bankruptcy? -
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 14th October 2011, 10:46am)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist."
It's from Dom Helder Camara, who was a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Brazil.
Who famously wrote a book about the need for revolution in class-struggle, then was offended that people called him a communist. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Perhaps he figured that commies are always violent.
It's always permitted to ask WHY people are poor. But if your answer is only that they are poor because somebody else has taken their wealth away, that pretty much labels you a communist. You've found a "witch" to blame.
Of course, outright theft is sometimes part (in some places even most) of the answer. But on the world stage it's only part of the answer. Wealth isn't created in our modern industrial age by some people simply concentating the weath that was always there, in a zero-sum process. Concentration happens, to be sure, but wealth itself is created by industry and trade. Marx admitted this, but thought that such weath was basically stolen as soon as created, except in the rare cases where people manage to work alone. A very stupid and destructive idea. The syndicalists did much better.
Anyway, Camera didn't really think much about industry and trade. All he did was complain of class-struggle, see theft. I'm tired of these social theorists who don't really understand trade and engineering. Ayn Rand (who went entirely too far in the other direction) is their punishment for not paying attention.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined:
Member No.: 19,790
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.
Huh? So you're saying that if someone tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble), it doesn't even make sense. Communists are not generally known for being even-handed or especially concerned with nuanced, neutrally-stated truth.
And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 2:33pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Do you see me blaming communism or Marxist-Leninism for all the evils of the world? You don't, do you? In 2011 the Commies are (finally) irrelevant. They have been for 20 years and are now only an irritation in academic backwaters and little BBS fights instigated by old-guard trolls.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 2:33pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Do you see me blaming communism or Marxist-Leninism for all the evils of the world? You don't, do you? In 2011 the Commies are (finally) irrelevant. They have been for 20 years and are now only an irritation in academic backwaters and little BBS fights instigated by old-guard trolls.
You think the world is just hunky dory so long as your own privileged is maintained. Your red baiting (or Shia Baiting or whatever is cheap and easy) seems reserved for anyone who can even envision any other kind of world.
Of course McCarthy's imagined foes didn't cause any evil either. I suppose I might have gone with the "Have you no decency" clip but that a little heavy handed against anyone as ineffectual as you. I like this one of JMcC more and it reminds me of you in the ability to dish it out but not take it. He'd be dead in a couple of years.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
Sanger: "Huh? So you're saying that if someone tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble) ..."
Allow me to correct my statement. My own subjective experience does not necessarily hold true for everyone else in every WP topic category. It does, however, hold true to the fact that in the space of a mere two or three months at WR I've been called a commie no less than 18 times (mainly by Roe). That doesn't necessarily bother me; as an ex-wikipedian formerly active at modern military history topics I'm thoroughly accustomed to it (and so are a few others).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
Sanger: "And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?"
Okay Mr Sanger. Let's overlook conveniently the fact that the United States is the only country in the world that has ever been found guilty of State-sponsored terrorism. The US ignored the ruling, saying it did not recognise the ruling. See The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, International Court of Justice (ICJ) 1984. (Curiously, the US now suddenly wants Gaddaffi to be brought before the same court that it earlier refused to recognise). Let's overlook also the CIA-backed death squads in Indonesia, which accounted for the deaths of nearly one million civilian suspected communists. Let's overlook also the CIA-sponsored Operation Phoenix in Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilian suspected communists. What am I vaguely driving at? I'm driving at the well-established fact that the American WP (and you, apparently) is/are simply unwilling or unable to deal with complexity and diversity, not least of all in the sphere of politics and modern history. In my book, that amounts to moral bankrupcy. If that makes me a "commie", then so be it. Better a commie than a fucking hypocrite.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th October 2011, 5:10am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
QUOTE
GBG: "WR bought the farm some time ago."
So tell me someone, anyone: Who exactly funds / controls WR? Could it be WMR? (Which latter might account for all the eternally meddling and bemedalled wikipedians here: just keepin' an eye on things, ya know). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
3 letters. Starts with a "C" and ends with a "A". Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 4:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Funny thing is, the guy you're getting uppity with has a long, long, long history of questioning who "funds/controls WR". Greg isn't in cahoots with the management in any way shape or form.
You, dear Communicat, are just the latest verbose paranoiac to grace us with your presence. One can only hope that you'll get bored or busy sooner or later and give up, but for the time being you've somehow managed to become the life of the party. GBG's point was more or less that a party that somebody like you can become the life of is not a party worth hanging out at (the nearest bar, pub, or tavern would almost certainly be better).
Before you get on your large plastic horse and denounce me: I actually agree with you more often than I do the people you're arguing with, I just don't jump in because I rarely feel the urge to jump in to defend the asshole.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:52pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 4:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Funny thing is, the guy you're getting uppity with has a long, long, long history of questioning who "funds/controls WR". Greg isn't in cahoots with the management in any way shape or form.
You, dear Communicat, are just the latest verbose paranoiac to grace us with your presence. One can only hope that you'll get bored or busy sooner or later and give up, but for the time being you've somehow managed to become the life of the party. GBG's point was more or less that a party that somebody like you can become the life of is not a party worth hanging out at (the nearest bar, pub, or tavern would almost certainly be better).
Before you get on your large plastic horse and denounce me: I actually agree with you more often than I do the people you're arguing with, I just don't jump in because I rarely feel the urge to jump in to defend the asshole.
Perhaps Communicat and Ottava can go to Target and procure a plastic tarp and a gallon of Wesson corn oil before retiring to the comfy confines of a Motel 6?
"You know he's not messin' when he goes for the Wesson..."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 10:52pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 4:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Funny thing is, the guy you're getting uppity with has a long, long, long history of questioning who "funds/controls WR". Greg isn't in cahoots with the management in any way shape or form.
You, dear Communicat, are just the latest verbose paranoiac to grace us with your presence. One can only hope that you'll get bored or busy sooner or later and give up, but for the time being you've somehow managed to become the life of the party. GBG's point was more or less that a party that somebody like you can become the life of is not a party worth hanging out at (the nearest bar, pub, or tavern would almost certainly be better).
Before you get on your large plastic horse and denounce me: I actually agree with you more often than I do the people you're arguing with, I just don't jump in because I rarely feel the urge to jump in to defend the asshole.
Dear SOB_Johnny, why not just tell me: who if anyone funds WR? Simple question, merits a simple answer pse. (Oh, and BTW I don't have any gripe with GBG. Whatever gave you that idea? In fact, I think he's one of the few sensible individuals around here. Unlike your good self.)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 15th October 2011, 10:19pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
3 letters. Starts with a "C" and ends with a "A". Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Nah, they've bigger fish to fry. More likely to be Soros, maybe. But why the secrecy? It's not such a big deal.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 6:31pm)
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 15th October 2011, 10:19pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
3 letters. Starts with a "C" and ends with a "A". Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Nah, they've bigger fish to fry. More likely to be Soros, maybe. But why the secrecy? It's not such a big deal.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 16th October 2011, 3:51am)
Communicat. WR is actually a grass-roots endeavor. It's simply fallen on hard times. If Soros were running it, don't you think he'd pay for a few ads?
*coughs*
Never mind. I will tell you the truth. WR is a rare cooperation between the Anti-Defamation League, The John Birch Society, and MI6.
Thanks Zoloft. Much appreciated. "Grassroots" hey? Now I understand; that must mean free servers/hosting, free bandwidth, free techies, free domain fees, etc, etc. Even a few free pseudo-intellectuals and free free-for-alls. Land of the free, I love you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 7:05am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th October 2011, 5:42pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 7:05am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."
To the words "it would be better shutter the site", maybe add: "and do a redirect to Wikipedia Watch, which says it all and has no room for mindless prattle."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(communicat @ Sun 16th October 2011, 3:26pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th October 2011, 5:42pm)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 7:05am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."
To the words "it would be better shutter the site", maybe add: "and do a redirect to Wikipedia Watch, which says it all and has no room for mindless prattle."
Says the guy responsible for the majority of the mindless prattle over the last few weeks. It's as if Ottava went around accusing everyone of being too argumentative.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 9:05am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I would come back as a Global Moderator if things are really bad. Keep in mind though...
*Note to Mod: I never did figure out how to re-size photos on this forum. Could someone fix the above and tell me how to do so?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th October 2011, 11:42am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 7:05am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 4:39am)
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 15th October 2011, 9:05am)
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
I would come back as a Global Moderator if things are really bad. Keep in mind though...
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 4:39am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 16th October 2011, 11:42am)
I sincerely think it would far better to shutter the site. Even if a new crop of moderators performed flawlessly and optimized participation with the sites current participants and anyone likely to join in it would not accomplish anything I'd see as worthwhile. In the mean time there are still a few things worth saying in the rubble of the site including but no limited to "it would be better shutter the site."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 6:31pm)
...who if anyone funds WR? Simple question, merits a simple answer...
Some person using the pseudonym "Selina" is the root sysop of this site, and she (?) finds a way to pay for the approximately $200 in hosting costs each year. One year, I contributed (I think) $20 or $30 to help out with the annual bill. I tend not to like Selina very much, because I thought this site could be run in a much more effective and meaningful way, but she didn't have the time or inclination to put forth the effort, and she didn't want to cede control of the site to someone who would. But, that's her choice, and I have to respect that.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
Radek: *Snort*
Ya know Radek, that stuff really messes with your brain after a while. (Which might not necessarily be a bad thing if you want to add to your dazzling collection of wikimedals).
QUOTE
Radek: "Says the guy [communicat] responsible for the majority of the mindless prattle over the last few weeks."
Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 17th October 2011, 2:29pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 6:31pm)
...who if anyone funds WR? Simple question, merits a simple answer...
Some person using the pseudonym "Selina" is the root sysop of this site, and she (?) finds a way to pay for the approximately $200 in hosting costs each year. One year, I contributed (I think) $20 or $30 to help out with the annual bill. I tend not to like Selina very much, because I thought this site could be run in a much more effective and meaningful way, but she didn't have the time or inclination to put forth the effort, and she didn't want to cede control of the site to someone who would. But, that's her choice, and I have to respect that.
Interesting to note Selina's avatar appears to proselytize a now more-or-less defunct Irish terrorist movement with known links to British intelligence MI5/MI6. Nothing surprises me anymore about the wacky world of WP/WR. Long live Wikipedia Watch.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:33am)
Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".
He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.
If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 17th October 2011, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:33am)
Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".
He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.
If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.
Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 12:03pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 17th October 2011, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:33am)
Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".
He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.
If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.
Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.
When people like you take their masks off and start making racist (yes, yes, I know "Poles" are not a race) and sociopathic remarks like the above, while at the same time whining and self-pitying themselves over how they got banned from some internet forum "unfairly", I know I'm doing something right.
Telling a dumb Polack that "he should've died at Katyn" takes no balls. Try something braver. Go insult some other ethnic group along the same lines.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:32pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 12:03pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 17th October 2011, 5:20pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:33am)
Says the guy who, whenever his neo-nazi views are challenged, can only retort/resnort "Fuck off". Well, as you can see, I'm not fucking off; and I still maintain you're a neo-nazi, despite or because of your unconvincing veneer of intellectual "superiority".
He did give you a very nice synopsis of US involvement in Chile. Be grateful he didn't decide to really squash you about USSR involvement in central Europe. However, by that time he had realized he was dealing with a True Believer, and there was no point.
If there's anything worse the people who simply say "fuck off" when they are called neo-nazis, it's people who call anybody whose politics are to the right of Rosa Luxemburg a neo-nazi in the first place.
Get the story right, you banal creep. Radek gave me no "very nice synopsis" about US/Chile. I deliberately distanced myself from that off-topic. His "very nice synopsis" was in fact directed at others including GBG who subsequently demolished Radek's brilliant thesis very nicely, thank you. As regards USSR involvement in central Europe, my only regret is that Radek was not among those at Katyn. Same applies to you.
When people like you take their masks off and start making racist (yes, yes, I know "Poles" are not a race) and sociopathic remarks like the above, while at the same time whining and self-pitying themselves over how they got banned from some internet forum "unfairly", I know I'm doing something right.
Telling a dumb Polack that "he should've died at Katyn" takes no balls. Try something braver. Go insult some other ethnic group along the same lines.
Scumbag.
I happen to be of Polish extraction myself. Don't for a moment flatter yourself into thinking everyone with Polish blood in his veins is cast in the same mould as yourself, you egocentric fuckpig.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined:
Member No.: 19,790
On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.
As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.
I've already plonked him, myself.
I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm)
On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.
As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.
I've already plonked him, myself.
I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!
Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe. Funny things is, whenever anyone tries to engage them in reasoned debate about NPOV in WP modern history articles, the topic goes off-topic and then off-off-topic and mudslinging replaces rationality. Why am I not surprised?
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm)
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm)
On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.
As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.
I've already plonked him, myself.
I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!
Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm)
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm)
On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.
As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.
I've already plonked him, myself.
I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!
Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 10:05pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm)
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:43pm)
On reading the above brilliant exchange of sentiments, my only observation is that, as we grow older, we apparently grow no wiser or more intelligent--just a little less crazy, and the cultural and historical references change from generation to generation.
As to Communicat, it's like this. He's a rabid leftist. As such, he feels morally superior to others who aren't equally far left. He comes here to bait and criticize, as this (ironically) flatters his sense of moral superiority. Others understandably insult him in return. But this only encourages him because after all, if you sincerely believe yourself to be morally superior, insults are only evidence of your moral superiority.
I've already plonked him, myself.
I disagree that WR is going downhill. I find it quite entertaining!
Nah, you've not plonked me. You've simply and unsrprisingly failed to respond to my earlier remarks about body counts. But you're right about one thing: WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool, thanks to rabid wikipedians like you, Radek, and Roe.
What are earth have you [Communicat] been drinking?
Plus, Radek has retired. And I only improve articles on obscure topics in the sciences. This stuff is mirrored at many sites, and I believe it is essentially independent of Wikipedia.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
The one thing I find disagreeable about communicat is that he uses that cute little cat for an avatar. An avowed ailurophile as myself simply cannot abide by having cute cat images associated with such rampant idiocy.
That is my only complaint on this issue. Carry on.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 18th October 2011, 12:19am)
The one thing I find disagreeable about communicat is that he uses that cute little cat for an avatar. An avowed ailurophile as myself simply cannot abide by having cute cat images associated with such rampant idiocy.
That is my only complaint on this issue. Carry on.
The one thing I find disagreeable about Kelly Martin is that she doesn't have an avatar at all.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm)
WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool...
GBG, you may ban away. Why would someone want to participate in a cesspool, and why would the current swimmers welcome such obnoxious criticism of the water temperature?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 17th October 2011, 6:20pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Mon 17th October 2011, 3:58pm)
WR is not going downhill. It's already at the bottom of the cesspool...
GBG, you may ban away. Why would someone want to participate in a cesspool, and why would the current swimmers welcome such obnoxious criticism of the water temperature?
Like I get to decide or something.
There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed. If it is any consolation sometimes I feel the same about your posts, although you were never among those I felt needed to be banned.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 79
Joined:
From: Somewhere west of Lake Chicago
Member No.: 11,908
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm)
Like I get to decide or something.
There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.
What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.
I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 8:53pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm)
Like I get to decide or something.
There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.
What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.
I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.
I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:57pm)
QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 8:53pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm)
Like I get to decide or something.
There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.
What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.
I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.
I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.
I have trouble thinking of anything to post anymore. My primary interest is the sociology and the political make-up of Wikipedia. How do you create a good collaborative culture with a fair, just political system that can mediate disputes yet have the wisdom to remove problem editors without creating a chilling effect and/or sparking a riot? What did Wikipedia do wrong in those regards? If we could go back to the years of Wikipedia development, what could we do to stop the problems we see now on WP from existing? How might crowdsourcing and expert input work side-by-side, if at all? As an aspiring librarian, I worry more about how readers will take resources like Wikipedia as the "be-all-end-all" of information and neglect the virtues of true information literacy. An education professor in my local paper recently lamented the emergence of a rote memorization education system that creates a culture that "just looks for information on Wikipedia" and eschews critical thinking skills.
Jon Awbrey used to delve into those kinds of questions and issues, but few of us could latch on to them and carry on a good, informative discussion. Peter is asking those kinds of questions now, but it has spun off into weird conversations about Milton being the son of Selina and Jayjg among other things. Oy vey. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm)
I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.
Right. Malice disappointed us so WR collapsed. That whole thing only exacerbated an already overwhelming flood of Wikipedians. In this case they wanted to read the "secret scoop" on what other Wikipedians said about them. Nobody but a complete idiot could be disappointed by that. But you see that as some kind of high point?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:59pm)
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm)
I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.
Right. Malice disappointed us so WR collapsed. That whole thing only exacerbated an already overwhelming flood of Wikipedians. In this case they wanted to read the "secret scope" on what other Wikipedians said about them. Nobody but a complete idiot could be disappointed by that. But you see that as some kind of high point?
Not sure what your point is.
Let's have a retrospective on the history of WR and what it has accomplished over the years (quite a lot actually). And some reflections on why it's different now. But none of that is likely to have much to do with the things you appear to be upset about, which seems to be that nobody is paying enough attention to you unless you act like an asshole.
The thing is, both of these systems, Wikipedia and WR, are evolving. Wikipedia has gotten a lot better at avoiding outright scandalous shit like Essjay or Montmoreland - I doubt it we're gonna ever get juicy blow ups like that again. If things like that are still there they're much much more well covered up (and I don't mean conspiracy wise - just under layers of hard to understand bureaucratic procedures).
The main thing is that even without outright obvious nonsense like that, Wikipedia still sucks. I know it, you know it, the average person knows it. But there is no longer an Essjay to point to as a symbol of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. You'd have to point at person x, and admin y, and then person z, and admin w and then... it degenerates into particulars, personal grudges and petty tifts. And nobody pays attention since at a basic level person x, admin y, person z, admin w don't all matter all that much individually. So it seems silly.
The thing is that the institutional problems that produces the Essjays and all the rest are still there and they still haven't been solved. What the creature did is eliminate obvious manifestations of these problems, Dilbert-style. It didn't actually address the problems.
What this means is that if you want to criticize Wikipedia now, the days of easy targets are over (specifically, there's still lots of folks there who are easy targets for Wikipedia Review conversations, but if you ever hope to convince the outside world that ain't gonna cut it, since the outside world only pays attention to the issues once in awhile and only when it's scandal bone is tickled). And this means that what the criticism needs to focus on is the structural workings of Wikipedia. But this is much harder and tedious then just saying 'so and so is lying about his credentials' or 'so and so is sockpuppeting in order to advance a particular COI infested POV'.
The question now is WHY did that sort of thing happen in the first place and HOW is it still happening. And honestly, at this point, what that entails is a lot of data gathering, meticulous recording of small incidents, documentation, pouring through a lot of boring data just to find the stuff that stands out, recording of daily traffic or AN/I or something - basically archival work. I don't think WR over all is equipped for this kind of thing, though some people here are definitely trying to take it that way.
So to get back to the Malice point - I think when that started coming out a lot of people thought "another scandal which will make it easy for us to criticize Wikipedia again!" But that's not how it works and that's not what happened. Like it or not, it's still the same shitty beast but a bit more wily this time. And you're not gonna get by making fun of some off hand remarks that some Arbitrator made on a private list. Criticism, good criticism, is actually a tough, tedious and usually thankless task. Better get used to it or find another forum.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 10:22pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 9:59pm)
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:57pm)
I think some of this has to do with the Malice leak thing. It raised great expectations, then it failed to deliver, disappointment and all, so people fell back into some kind of stupid political squabbling and lost sight of what the purpose of this site is supposed to be.
Right. Malice disappointed us so WR collapsed. That whole thing only exacerbated an already overwhelming flood of Wikipedians. In this case they wanted to read the "secret scope" on what other Wikipedians said about them. Nobody but a complete idiot could be disappointed by that. But you see that as some kind of high point?
Not sure what your point is.
Let's have a retrospective on the history of WR and what it has accomplished over the years (quite a lot actually). And some reflections on why it's different now. But none of that is likely to have much to do with the things you appear to be upset about, which seems to be that nobody is paying enough attention to you unless you act like an asshole.
The thing is, both of these systems, Wikipedia and WR, are evolving. Wikipedia has gotten a lot better at avoiding outright scandalous shit like Essjay or Montmoreland - I doubt it we're gonna ever get juicy blow ups like that again. If things like that are still there they're much much more well covered up (and I don't mean conspiracy wise - just under layers of hard to understand bureaucratic procedures).
The main thing is that even without outright obvious nonsense like that, Wikipedia still sucks. I know it, you know it, the average person knows it. But there is no longer an Essjay to point to as a symbol of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. You'd have to point at person x, and admin y, and then person z, and admin w and then... it degenerates into particulars, personal grudges and petty tifts. And nobody pays attention since at a basic level person x, admin y, person z, admin w don't all matter all that much individually. So it seems silly.
The thing is that the institutional problems that produces the Essjays and all the rest are still there and they still haven't been solved. What the creature did is eliminate obvious manifestations of these problems, Dilbert-style. It didn't actually address the problems.
What this means is that if you want to criticize Wikipedia now, the days of easy targets are over (specifically, there's still lots of folks there who are easy targets for Wikipedia Review conversations, but if you ever hope to convince the outside world that ain't gonna cut it, since the outside world only pays attention to the issues once in awhile and only when it's scandal bone is tickled). And this means that what the criticism needs to focus on is the structural workings of Wikipedia. But this is much harder and tedious then just saying 'so and so is lying about his credentials' or 'so and so is sockpuppeting in order to advance a particular COI infested POV'.
The question now is WHY did that sort of thing happen in the first place and HOW is it still happening. And honestly, at this point, what that entails is a lot of data gathering, meticulous recording of small incidents, documentation, pouring through a lot of boring data just to find the stuff that stands out, recording of daily traffic or AN/I or something - basically archival work. I don't think WR over all is equipped for this kind of thing, though some people here are definitely trying to take it that way.
So to get back to the Malice point - I think when that started coming out a lot of people thought "another scandal which will make it easy for us to criticize Wikipedia again!" But that's not how it works and that's not what happened. Like it or not, it's still the same shitty beast but a bit more wily this time. And you're not gonna get by making fun of some off hand remarks that some Arbitrator made on a private list. Criticism, good criticism, is actually a tough, tedious and usually thankless task. Better get used to it or find another forum.
Nice spin running completely contrary to the previous statement you are defending. Very Wikipedian. This coming from of those "content creators" who spent the past five years collecting barnstars and shit. Please just go back home.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
The Joy: "How might crowdsourcing and expert input work side-by-side, if at all?"
Crowd sourcing produces excessive noise. Expert input equals transmission of information, i.e. communication. Noise prevents communication. QED: The two are incompatible. Which results either in miscommunication or in no communication at all. That's probably the cause of most if not all disruptive conflict not only at WP/WR but in the notion of "participatory democracy" as a whole. The alternative is autocracy; and that ain't much of an alternative either. There are no easy solutions. That's life. As Alexander Pope put it: "Whatever is, is right". Get over it.
Another problem with noisy crowd-sourcing is that everybody is absolutely certain he/she is right; absolutely certain everything is either black or white. No shades of gray. Nobody knows how to live with uncertainty, that is to say, how to live with NPOV.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(nableezy @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:53pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 17th October 2011, 7:33pm)
Like I get to decide or something.
There was a moment when I thought a small purge could turn the site around. But that moment passed.
What do you think the biggest problems are? And if you did get to decide what would you do about it? I think yall have been a bit over accommodating of any banned or blocked editor coming here to complain, at great length, that their ban is unjust, immoral, and all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The other problem is how WR has become co-opted by WP; for many of the people here it is just an extension of the place with some of the rules suspended (I aint gonna lie, thats been me every once in a while). The Annex largely solves that though, but yall should be a bit more aggressive in sending things there.
I think this place has a lot to offer. You, particularly, have convinced me that not only is WP bad, but that the only responsible thing to do with it is to stop editing it. Actually doing that aint the easiest thing for reasons that can be discussed elsewhere, but when the site focuses on actual criticism of WP it can be immensely useful and, occasionally, insightful.
Nice to know that I had influence on somebody on this site. I still believe that any meaningful critique of WP needs to focus on external standards and perspectives. To look at WPs destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries. To confront it's insensitivity to the needs of significant communities outside its own narrow demographics such as Muslims and parents. To expose the risk it presents to children. To oppose the erosion of fundamentally fair notions like people should be paid for work and charities should help people rather than merely provide yet another forum people to say whatever they want. To warn against the corrosive effect of extreme libertarianism and Free Kulture. None of this can be discussed on Wikipedia. Of late none of it can be discussed to any profit on WR.
Rather than change or truncate the scope of the critique to fit the new WR it makes more sense to take the heart of the critique elsewhere. It won't be limited to just WP. It it won't be brought by "glassbeadgame." It doesn't need to take a bunch of Wikipedians along.
So mostly my interest here is with the damage Wikipedians have done to this and similar sites including confronting the narrowness of their demographics politics and culture. Also to oppose any move to bring in any Wikipedian moderators to facilitate the theft of the site and encourage shutting down the site rather than becoming a Wikipedian noticeboard.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 18th October 2011, 6:25pm)
Nice to know that I had influence on somebody on this site. I still believe that any meaningful critique of WP needs to focus on external standards and perspectives. To look at WPs destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries. To confront it's insensitivity to the needs of significant communities outside its own narrow demographics such as Muslims and parents. To expose the risk it presents to children. To oppose the erosion of fundamentally fair notions like people should be paid for work and charities should help people rather than merely provide yet another forum people to say whatever they want. To warn against the corrosive effect of extreme libertarianism and Free Kulture. None of this can be discussed on Wikipedia. Of late none of it can be discussed to any profit on WR.
Could you please elaborate on some of your points, for example, how WP makes a destructive impact on democratic institution such as the press, education, museums and libraries? My question not necessarily means I disagree with you. I simply would like to understand what you mean. From my own perspective I could compare Wikipedia to Communism: Both ideas were great, but implementations proved that nothing good came out of either.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Moral bankruptcy?, The Butler in the library with the canlestick
