Simple English Wikipedia, 50 times smaller, but still more stupid Options

[FurWissen2]

The Simple Wikipedia is about 50 times smaller than English Wikipedia, but the unprofessional behavior of the editors, the policies, and the way the policies are enforced are idiotic. Most editors there are Western European kids who have nothing to do. The Wikipedia lovers abound there, people who are extremely opposed to changes in Wikipedia, administrators who are hasty to use the tools when not completely informed about a situation, and people who are just immature.

The people there worship Wikipedia. Most of them hardly ever question policy, they instead blindly follow it as if it's dogma. The ones that frequently appear demonstrate their lack of seriousness and consideration for the real-life consequences of Wikipedia, by treating a collaborative website of its nature as a game, competitions like the WikiCup being obsessed over. Also see how the Simple Wikipedians are objecting so highly to flagged revisions, though they seem to provide no rational argument against it. They all just act like a bunch of inconsiderate children that have been indoctrinated into Wikipedia at a young age. I have nothing against children, though they should learn about the consequences of allowing Wikipedia biographies to remain so unmonitored, with such a small amount of regulation before they go spouting "All for the Wiki" propaganda. I was browsing the Christopher Columbus article and I saw something about him reaching Pelham, New York instead of India (when he actually came to a Bahamian island). It was there for three months. What if that was a biography being vandalized with plausible, but false, information?

I will continue...

[FurWissen2]

Another large problem is hypersensitivity. The main issue, because this is what is in the range of "appropriate" communication, is whether Simple Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. If a fundamental aspect of policy appears to be flawed, then criticism of that policy is out of the appropriate range of discussion. If one does mention such a thing, the first reaction to it would be a gang-up of users claiming "incivility" and such. Debating or questioning fundamental policy, or the application of it, will get Wikipedia Police in Training on your back, calling for your head. Users who are not Wikipedia naturals or do not immediately adapt to Wikipedia are given a warning or a welcome message, depending on your behavior. Efforts are not made to communicate better with users, instead if someone actually requires help, beyond a template welcome message, everyone will be confused and call for the only solution they can think of or operate: a press of the block button.

It seems that there are one or more self-nominations for adminship every week, by users who are "high profile" enough, teen-aged, and know nothing beyond how to copy and paste an article, shorten it, and make it talk down to the reader. These people are full of themselves, and begging for power. Razorflame is one. SwirlBoy39 too. FastReverter/StaticFalcon/Whatever is another. There was an incident of people saying things they never would say on a public website about him, on Chat. I have the logs. But that doesn't change the fact that his motive is power.

I have nothing against children. I am not that old even. I just think that many children on Wikipedia are immature and do not know how to handle power well. A child who is responsible with power should be allowed to become a Wikipedia administrator, but not one that craves it. This goes for adults as well.

[FurWissen2]

Wikipedia gets youths engaged in the unethical process of Wikipedia, encouraging them at an early age to be enamored of power, ignore ethics, and oppose altruism. In other words, indoctrinate them into Objectivism. The impressionable minds of many young people are manipulated by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia uses intimidation tactics like the threat of block to get people to appreciate Wikipedia at a young age. The wording used in Wikipedia is attractive to youths, as it gives the impression of participatory decision making and a comfortable learning environment. They then further present to the youth a set of rules that "should not be challenged". The child is to obey. The mind of an impressionable child is in training, training to help them conform. It is the internet equivalent of Ritalin.

[Moulton]

I enjoyed your analysis, most of which is spot on target.

Yes, Wikipedians are drowning in dogma, and insufficiently schooled in the intellectual tools of epistemological self-examination to diagnose their delusional beliefs and dysfunctional derivative practices.

Yes, Wikipedians are hopelessly narcissistic — a marked trait of emotional immaturity that reinforces their aversion to critical self-examination.

Yes, Wikipedians are woefully behind the learning curve in terms of their readiness to adopt or employ ethical best practices.

But, to their credit, they are very adept at crafting and maintaining a leading edge site for cyberspace dramaturgy. When it comes to post-modern theater of the absurd, Wikipedia's unparalleled drama engine is an endless source of captivating lunatic social drama.

[Giggy]

Incidentally, the discussion on Simple linked to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm which has got to have the most attractive photo of Jimbo ever.

FürWissen2, do you have an account on Simple? It might make discussion easier if you were to reveal its name here. I mostly agree with what you've said, though.

[The Wales Hunter]

I agree with most of what has been said above, although that would surprise nobody. Simple English is little more than a playground.

If a group of 10 or more people (from wherever) decided to register accounts over there and just do a bit of reverting and expanding for a few weeks, they could take over the entire project quite easily.

Would make more sense to scrap Simple and have an option in EN to read the article in "Simple English" as a tab, etc.

[dtobias]

The Wikipedia lovers abound there

I don't see anything particularly strange about any Wikipedia project being dominated by people who like Wikipedia; it would be strange if people who hated Wikipedia were devoting so much effort to working on it that they dominated one of the projects there.

[LaraLove]

The Simple Wikipedia is about 50 times smaller than English Wikipedia, but the unprofessional behavior of the editors, the policies, and the way the policies are enforced are idiotic. Most editors there are Western European kids who have nothing to do.

I consider Simple to be comparable to New South Wales in the 1790s, only without the brutal punishment from watchful eyes. Alternatively, think Lord of the Flies.

Most amusing for me was the open disdain they expressed for en-wiki admins.

[Giggy]

I consider Simple to be comparable to New South Wales in the 1790s, only without the brutal punishment from watchful eyes.

Were this the case, all the regulars at Simple would have overrun En and imparted their way of life upon it, forcing most of the En regulars to leave (or, in the analogy, die).

Some would argue that exactly that is happening, though.

[The Wales Hunter]

Against my better judgement I took a peek over there.

Somebody is running for reconfirmation after six weeks and has announced they will quit the project as an edit if their bit is taken away:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...reconfirmation)

More disturbingly, a user has used Simple to draft an "apology" to the EN community:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chri...sandbox/Apology

And other editors on another page (notice how many are banned from EN!) give what they think is advice...

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk...ology-criticism

Some gems:

You seem to have been very nice in your apology. You have proved that you can be a good editor. Your behaviour was kinda bad according to the apology, but you are saying whenever you come back, you'll be better. But if you edit like you did in en, you might be indefbanned like you were on en and like Jonas. TurboGolf 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. I really think it's nice that you decided to construct such a nice apology (I wish I did the same when I was blocked ). I agree with Yotcmdr: it will be very hard to get unblocked, because the community remembers everything. Seriously. If you a few strong admins to mentor you and keep you in a mainspace majority, you might have a shot. But it will be very hard. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is really touching. I am also banned on enWp for the same reason and that should get you unbanned. I wish I could write something as good as that. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good. Nice and clear, very apologetic, but I however don't think they'll unban you. They just see you as a nobody who's done to many errors in the past. I don't think it's impossible for you to be unbanned (Static/fastreverter did actually manage to come back) but in you case It'll be even harder as it's at EN... Appart from all that, I think it's well written, and it made me read until the end (which is a very good thing). Hopping that you will succeed and do get un-bannedbecause you are a very good editor. Regards, and good luck, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 09:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick scan, but "try to make amends or what-have-ya with the community" - Honestly? Make amends or whatever... I don't think thats the best wording. Thats all I have to say on this, I don't have any comments on whether or not you should be unblocked. Kennedy (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter: Wed 28th January 2009, 2:30pm

[LaraLove]

notice how many are banned from EN!

That's what I'm sayin'! Penal colony.

[The Wales Hunter]

notice how many are banned from EN!

That's what I'm sayin'! Penal colony.

But the early Australian penal settlers knew they were penal settlers, this lot don't!

The only way Simple can work, assuming a "Simple tab on EN" is out of the question, is by a reboot. There are too many admins over there who haven't a clue, but because they back each other up that isn't going to change, unless by force.

[Kato]

notice how many are banned from EN!

That's what I'm sayin'! Penal colony.

But the early Australian penal settlers knew they were penal settlers, this lot don't!

The only way Simple can work, assuming a "Simple tab on EN" is out of the question, is by a reboot. There are too many admins over there who haven't a clue, but because they back each other up that isn't going to change, unless by force.

Doesn't that apply to all Wikipedia projects by their very nature?

[The Wales Hunter]

Yes. But the difference, as I see it, is that while there are some "very bad" and "very good" admins on EN, there are many "so-so". On Simple, the majority are clueless.

[Somey]

The thing about the Simple English Wikiipedia is that it's not only a training and indoctrination ground for impressionable children, it's also a kind of pressure-relief system for Wikipedia itself, to draw off and discourage younger types who lack editorial talent and judgement. (Not that WP requires much of either, of course.)

If those people were all insisting on being a part of the main "project," they'd create so much frustration and resentment among the (mostly) 20- and 30-somethings who dominate WP that many of them would give up, and WP might only be about half the size it is now. (As it is, there's still plenty of frustration and resentment in general, but it's mostly confined to controversial subjects, while the all-important pop-culture topics like TV shows and comic books are kept relatively free of open age-warfare).

They actually tried to do the same sort of thing with Uncyclopedia, but with only limited success, IMO. To some extent, many of the Wikia subdomains also play the relief-valve role, but the main thing has always been to keep the children out of the hair of the adults.

You'd also have to assume that the skew towards a younger demographic presumably makes the site a magnet for pedophiles, and adults pretending to be children in general (which is simply to say that not all child impersonators are pedophiles). But that sort of thing would probably go on no matter what they were doing, and to be fair, the situation there is probably no worse than numerous other social websites that cater to groups that include younger members.

[Milton Roe]

The thing about the Simple English Wikiipedia is that it's not only a training and indoctrination ground for impressionable children, it's also a kind of pressure-relief system for Wikipedia itself, to draw off and discourage younger types who lack editorial talent and judgement. (Not that WP requires much of either, of course.)

But that was never stated. Sure, it became a sort of RomperRoom-opedia,, but not by anybody's clear choice.

My metaphor for that is when two people are walking, and each thinks the other is leading--- they tend to more or less follow isoclinic lines, with superimposed comfortable downhill grade....

I suppose if somebody had just said: NOW HEAR THIS: Simple English Wikipedia is supposed to be like en.wiki in every possible way-- same age demographics, same intelligence, same everything in both writers and readers, EXCEPT readers are assumed to have only a basic knowledge of English and a limited vocabulary, everybody's head would have exploded.

[michael]

Simple is so ridiculously bureaucratic, I can't believe they're spending village pump time on a third bureaucrat. Eptalon, one of the few sane heads, wants five users to go up for RFB to decide who is the best?! I really can't believe they're moaning about timely closures of RFAs.

This post has been edited by michael: Thu 29th January 2009, 6:17am

[FurWissen2]

To The Wales Hunter: I am not completely against children handling tasks on Wikipedia, you seem to be (please correct me if this is a misinterpretation). I am merely opposed to power-hungry, irresponsible, and capricious people (this includes adults) being in positions of power.

But, to their credit, they are very adept at crafting and maintaining a leading edge site for cyberspace dramaturgy. When it comes to post-modern theater of the absurd, Wikipedia's unparalleled drama engine is an endless source of captivating lunatic social drama.

They also do a good job indoctrinating people into that drama engine, so that they begin to enamor it, and it becomes a major aspect of their life.

FürWissen2, do you have an account on Simple? It might make discussion easier if you were to reveal its name here. I mostly agree with what you've said, though.

Sorry, but no. I will tell you by e-mail, if you give me an ISP e-mail by PM though, but I am not sure if it's safe to reveal it on a public board like this. You have had interactions with me on the website before, though.

Against my better judgement I took a peek over there.

Somebody is running for reconfirmation after six weeks and has announced they will quit the project as an edit if their bit is taken away:

This is quite an immature move on the face of it; I haven't investigated further.

You seem to have been very nice in your apology. You have proved that you can be a good editor. Your behaviour was kinda bad according to the apology, but you are saying whenever you come back, you'll be better. But if you edit like you did in en, you might be indefbanned like you were on en and like Jonas. TurboGolf 09:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is coming from one of those vandals who are "reformed" and have the colorful sigs and a carefree, aloof, and non-serious approach to things at Wikipedia. He was not "nice" in his apology, and to say that makes a statement about the person who thinks this, or rather their hypothetical behavioral tendencies in such a situation. Also, why did he change his signature to "Turbo Golf" if his username is "Tharnton345"?

"Jonas" refers to Jonas D. Rand, who uses the name "User:Jonas D. Rand" on Simple Wikipedia, and was banned on New Years' Day for criticism and offending some hypersensitive or corrupt administrators and social clibers, pointing them out as such. Tharnton is here encouraging people to kiss Wikipedia's ass during and after their ban, showing their true self by proving their ignorance, and being loyal to administrators so as not to be blocked. Just like StaticFalcon

Well. I really think it's nice that you decided to construct such a nice apology (I wish I did the same when I was blocked ). I agree with Yotcmdr: it will be very hard to get unblocked, because the community remembers everything. Seriously. If you a few strong admins to mentor you and keep you in a mainspace majority, you might have a shot. But it will be very hard. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is coming from another sockpuppeteer on English Wikipedia who is now full of himself and wants to be an admin badly. He does all the social schmooze acts that get one into power there; the place is so corrupt that immature and irresponsible people like American Eagle and Shapiros10, if they gain popularity, can gain power as well.

That is really touching. I am also banned on enWp for the same reason and that should get you unbanned. I wish I could write something as good as that. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No explanation necessary. This should speak for itself, considering that it's ShockingHawk.

Quick scan, but "try to make amends or what-have-ya with the community" - Honestly? Make amends or whatever... I don't think thats the best wording. Thats all I have to say on this, I don't have any comments on whether or not you should be unblocked. Kennedy (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant is not reliable. He likes to pretend to be journalistic, but in reality he's just a bored 19-year-old who likes to use it as a playground, which most participants seem to view it as.

Simple is so ridiculously bureaucratic, I can't believe they're spending village pump time on a third bureaucrat. Eptalon, one of the few sane heads, wants five users to go up for RFB to decide who is the best?! I really can't believe they're moaning about timely closures of RFAs.

The entire debate about whether new bureaucrats are needed is a distraction created, or used, to give the illusion of "open debate". When fundamental change is proposed, as Jonas D. Rand tried to do, the person who does so is banned, or gets close to being banned.

This post has been edited by FürWissen2: Thu 29th January 2009, 9:52am

[Giggy]

FürWissen2, do you have an account on Simple? It might make discussion easier if you were to reveal its name here. I mostly agree with what you've said, though.

Sorry, but no. I will tell you by e-mail, if you give me an ISP e-mail by PM though, but I am not sure if it's safe to reveal it on a public board like this. You have had interactions with me on the website before, though.

"You give me your full name and ISP and I'll give you a username."

Knock it off. Thankfully, there are some more friendly users are WR who are also better at recognising speech patters than I am.

[Skinny87]

I enjoyed your analysis, most of which is spot on target.

Yes, Wikipedians are drowning in dogma, and insufficiently schooled in the intellectual tools of epistemological self-examination to diagnose their delusional beliefs and dysfunctional derivative practices.

Yes, Wikipedians are hopelessly narcissistic — a marked trait of emotional immaturity that reinforces their aversion to critical self-examination.

Yes, Wikipedians are woefully behind the learning curve in terms of their readiness to adopt or employ ethical best practices.

But, to their credit, they are very adept at crafting and maintaining a leading edge site for cyberspace dramaturgy. When it comes to post-modern theater of the absurd, Wikipedia's unparalleled drama engine is an endless source of captivating lunatic social drama.

Hey, cool, you've analysed me perfectly - it's like you're inside my head!

...No, wait, you haven't. Now, I really don't want to get into an argument, but this sort of post is why I signed up here. I agree with a lot of what WR does, but like I've said in a previous thread WR seems to be 50% valid criticism, 30% invalid rubbish, and 20% conspiracy theories. And this comes across as part of that 30%

You're tarring with such a huge brush, I've never seen one that big before! Let's tick off the list. I'm not 'drowning in dogma', mainly because I treat wikipedia as a hobby and not as a religion. I'm quite sure I'm not a narcissist, and am quite emotionally mature given that I'm studying a History MA and have a fiancee. To be honest, the rest of your points just seem like a heap of buzzwords thrown together to look imoressive.

As I'm writing this, I've realized that this is probably why you post this stuff - to get a rise. But I'm trying to procrastinate, and I also want to try and tackle this attitude on WR. So, have at ye and so forth.