Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ My Wikipedia Year

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Hello, I'm Jonny Cache. That's right, you all know me, I walk the line. It started as a joke and just gets funnier all the time.

But seriously, folks, I don't really know who any of you are or what you're really about -- for all I know you could be a dozen times more wiked by far than the wikipatricians you criticize, for all I know you could be a yet another wikerwork duckblind that a host of wikiputian myrmidons is hiding behind. Don't worry about convincing me one way or the other right now -- by your harvest the world shall know you, all in good time.

But I can appreciate the apparent fact that you apparently saw this apparent need for a critique of wikipedic reason, or to put it more wikiprecisely, a citizen review board to maintain civilian custody of what is qwikly becoming a wikipolice state. So I consider it my civic duty to the larger society in which we all really live to help you become an effective and respected body of critical reflectors, not only on the clear and present state of wikipedia but on the spate of all pretentious encyclements of human knowledge that we are no doubt likely to see from here and now on.

To be continued ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: guy

Welcome - we look forward to your contributions.

Posted by: Somey

As I recall, you were primarily concerned with the way Wikipedia disrespects experts in various subject areas by giving equal credence to, well, basically anyone who comes along. In other words, the fact that a Ph.D. Nobel Laureate professor of astrophysics can be easily shouted down, serially reverted, and even banned from the site by some teenager whose primary area of expertise is, ooh, let's just say, Pokemon characters, or how best to win at Final Fantasy VII.

This is an exaggeration, really, but nevertheless the question remains whether or not this is a systemic problem (as I would maintain) or a cultural one, in so far as the internet is teeming with teenage Pokemon experts while Ph.D. astrophysicists are, for whatever reason, rather difficult to find.

Ultimately, though, the real problem with Wikipedia is that they don't see this as a problem at all. Their idea of "constructive criticism" is to suggest ways to remove any hindrances to their activities, as well as their growth, and of course this criticism must take place within their own environment where the critic can be dismissed as a "troll" if he or she fails to submit to their "cluestickings," and where that person's arguments can simply be deleted if they prove to be somehow inconvenient.

So we're never really going to be "respected," at least not by them. Nor should we care, really. Wikipedia really is a cult at this point, and while we might conceivably help in some way to deprogram a few genuinely "clueful" people on occasion, the important thing is to just keep watching, interpreting, and explaining what they do, so that the public at large has somewhere to go for an alternative perspective on the whole crazy thing.

Posted by: JohnA

Welcome to the board, Jon!

I read your "exit interview" and it seemed to peter out. Would you like to rewrite it here in some sort of order? We can promise not to be patronizing (unlike the Wikifools)

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I will have more to say about the semiotic practices of the WP Mediocracy later on, but I am still in the early phases of my own deprogramming regimen and so I will have to be very careful about my own use of words, especially those that the WikiPrefrontaLobotomysts have taken, er, given some pains to surger to their own WikiPecuLiar ends. So it will help me at first to bracket them off like so -- [[WP:Expert]] -- and that will serve to remind us that the bracken-word has a pragmatics attaching to it that is more or less skew to its common sense meaning among common sense folks, and more than likely becoming more skew as time goes by.

Well, I'm supposed to be R&Ring from my recent exertions in WP, so I'll have to break now and pick it up later.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Okay, let me try to finish that thought about [[WP:Expertise]] and ordinary Expertise that Somey incited, as it touches on a critical issue that I've been thinking about a lot lately.

The lion's share of the cultural background in WP, at least until recently, follows nothing more sinister than the "Eternal Law Of Innocence" (ELOI), and it is, like it says, fairly innocuous so far as it goes. It goes with the territory to dress up in Big People's clothes and pretend to be older and wiser than you really are. Once again, this is a fairly harmless form of transitional pretension in itself -- it's really just a normal part of growing up, anticipating in the medium of play-acting the next stage of life -- and plus it's just plain fun to pretend sometimes, even for Gr'ups.

So far so good, but I'm guessing that some of you have read the rest of the story.

Beware the Morlock, ye innocent children!

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

This is one of those days when I start to feel like Wikipedia is just too silly to be worth discussing, and that maybe I'll look back on the time I spent writing this a year from now and wonder why I bothered at all. But a moment's reflection in my present frame of mind still presents me with a few illusions of reasons to make the effort, and so I'll just have to go with my present impulse. I'll get back to the subjects of expertise and my attempts to provide the WP Cabal with some helpful feedback by way of an exit interview another time. But it seems like some self-introductory data might be in order at this point.

I registered as a WP user in December of 2005, under the name that the real world has long been accustomed to call me by. That was, looking back, my first mistake. Enlisting under your real name makes you a permanent 3rd class citizen in WP, subject to all sorts of abasements and special restrictions, not unlike having a number tattooed on your arm. Meanwhile, all the nobles and vassals of this supposedly non-elitist kingdom go riding about the countryside in their white-sheeted fancy dress plume de noms like aristocrats off to a masquerade ball, lashing out in every direction with high horse impunity at the poor dumb Wikipeons who were too simple-minded to concoct the immunity of a disguise for themselves.

I will have to do this in small bits, as it makes me tired just to think on these things.

To be continued ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sun 17th September 2006, 10:30pm) *
I registered as a WP user in December of 2005, under the name that the real world has long been accustomed to call me by. That was, looking back, my first mistake. Enlisting under your real name makes you a permanent 3rd class citizen in WP, subject to all sorts of abasements and special restrictions, not unlike having a number tattooed on your arm.

I'm glad you brought that up, actually, painful though it may be. I don't actually have an account on Wikipedia, but I really do notice while looking at patterns of edit warring, and revert-warring especially, a certain sense of suspicion and a desire to intimidate directed towards people who use their real names on WP. This of course is putting aside the long-timer admins like David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Kelly Martin (though she's only been an admin for a year or so). After all, if you can just ban people...

It seems fairly logical and reasonable (IMO) to assume that the completely anonymous users view the use of real names as a value judgement made against them - as if the real names are saying "I'm a real person and therefore my contributions are real and viable and therefore more valuable/responsible/worthwhile than yours."

At the same time, the people most likely to have good reason to remain anonymous, presumably, are those who are all over the internet in various guises - younger users, mostly, including a few genuine 1337-types. In other words, people who are used to using fake names for everything, if only for their own personal safety, but who are also somewhat less likely to have a high degree of expertise or education in traditionally academic/professional subject areas, i.e., the sciences, economics, politics, philosophy, and so on.

The real problem (again, IMO) is that the older, more educated, "real-name" types just can't keep up with the 1337 kids. Either they don't have the necessary time for it, or they just don't know all the tricks - because they didn't grow up using those tricks in daily life. They don't have networks of anonymous internet buddies (if not outright confederates) from LiveJournal or MySpace or Digg or alt.religion.scientology (well okay, maybe Usenet in general), or anywhere else... They might at first have seen Wikipedia as little more than an encyclopedia project, "right up their alley," but boy were they wrong, huh?

And it's always a hoot to read the latest quotes from Kelly, Tony Dave et al about how "our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, and any other reason for being here amounts to trolling," when their roots in anti-Scientology are so well-known. I'm not exactly keen on Scientology either, in fact I'm perfectly happy letting them bash away at it all they like, but really, come clean, people! It's not like Tom Cruise's career is in an upswing right about now, is it?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Here I'm mostly concerned with the systematic hypocrisy and misrepresentation that I find on WP Policy pages, the cynicism and mistrust that it inevitably engenders in the hapless member of the WP populace, any persistent comment on which will just as inevitably bring that member to being excised from that populace. The gang of administrators that I've come to recognize as the "Activist Subcabal Of The Administrative Cabal" (ASOTAC) exploits its anonymity in precisely the same way that the KKK aveils itself of its notorious white sheets -- it serves to em-bolden what is evidently a type of personality too insecure in the firmness of its dicta to face its victim like a mensch.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

One of the things that we'll have to do on the way to becoming a more effective and respected critic of Wikipedia is pass from the stage of anecdotal chat to documenting our observations with verifiable data. This, of course, gets harder to do all the time as the WP Adminions get more and more deliberate and systematic in their deletion of history data. The truly fanatical POV-pushers that have come to dominate the ASOTAC and their chief hangers-on, the "Wannabe Administrator Cabal" (WAC), are not content to quash criticism and quell dissent among the boarders of their jurisdictum -- they have to destroy the evidence that any such [[WP:Disruption]] ever existed. So it has already become necessary to start keeping our own books, before the WP Administrafers and WP Backrollers have a chance to rewrite their history.

On a personal note of that tune, here is some Bio Data on the unsecret identity of yours truly, from my home page at Textop Wiki:

FORUM Image http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Jon_Awbrey

I used to keep this and other wholly unoffensive information on my WP user and talk pages, before they were hashhashinated by a member of that fast-growing crowd, the "Duly Sanctioned Administrative Vandal" (DSAV), who naturally referred to my attempts to restore the information as [[WP:Vandalism]], yet another word that is quickly losing any trace of its former meaning. So maybe there is something to the observation that WP True Believers have come to despise any trace of Real World connection among their congregation. Yet another symptom of Cult Psychology, now that you mention it.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: poopooball

it could more to the point be that the real name editors just happen to be some of the worst administrators the project has. although with tonys not-officially-forced wikibreak we might finally be seeing the shift the project needs. maybe kmart and cyde can be next.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Ha! In such a Big Junkyard, I'm sure that there's more than enough Junkyard Chihuahuas for all of us to have our own personal heel-nippers. I'll get around to naming some of my pet pseudo-names later, but I think it's important right now that we start building a more exhaustive database for tracking the increasingly flagrant mis-conduct of these Power-Breeds-Corruption breeds of WP Power Mongrels. That is, before the dogmatics in question eat the data altogether.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th September 2006, 9:55pm) *

I really do notice while looking at patterns of edit warring, and revert-warring especially, a certain sense of suspicion and a desire to intimidate directed towards people who use their real names on WP. This of course is putting aside the long-timer admins like David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Kelly Martin (though she's only been an admin for a year or so).


And, at the risk of being indelicate, we now know that that's not her given name. She sort of took role-playing to the next level.

Posted by: guy

QUOTE(poopooball @ Mon 18th September 2006, 2:59pm) *

it could more to the point be that the real name editors just happen to be some of the worst administrators the project has.

Who did you have in mind: Charles Matthews? Jmabel (Joe Mabel)? Jfdwolff? JzG (who clearly gives his name on his talk page)? It is often a mistake to generalise too much.

Posted by: Somey

Well now, let's not forget that this point is being made in regard to "ordinary" (i.e., non-admin) editors. And nobody is saying it's impossible even now for someone using his/her real name to become an admin - that someone just has to avoid articles and subject areas where there's a lot of reverting and edit-warring going on, while still somehow getting noticed by other users, in particular the ones who vote in RfA's. But that's easy - they do that by simply voting themselves, and nearly always "For," in every RfA that comes up, until it's their "turn."

I realize that in writing this, I'm agreeing on some points with Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and several other "cabal" types on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard who are interested in "reforming" the RfA process by essentially getting rid of it, probably in favor of unilateral appointments, and still without any effective means of admin recall (as is currently the case). It's the recall that's really needed, of course... The RfA process is flawed, but you could say that about almost any form of democracy, consensus-based or otherwise. It's still better than dictatorship, IMO.

But hey, just because they're corrupt, it doesn't mean they're incapable of noticing obvious problems! smile.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Speaking at Random for the Time Being, let me apologize in advance for the fact that I'm not really all that interested, at least for the purposes of this Forum, in discussing matters of RW politics, RW religion, and RW sex, and so I'm afrayed that this meta*narrative of mine will have to be rather inexcusably boring compared to what I emmensely enjoy reading on the other plancks and skids of this Tabula Rara.

For my part, I'll be mostly concerned with the issues of "Factual Reporting And Responsible Scholarship" (FRARS). If anybody reads that acronym in a sexist vein, just let me know and I'll get to work on a suitable debreviation for SORORS, too.

In regard to FRARS, then, I am further concerned with the deleterious impact that a number of recent and radical alterations to major http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines is bound to have on the already low state of quality control in Wikipedia, especially with respect to several whole classes of fundamentally important articles.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Speaking at Random Fora While Yet -- as I pinball my way anabatically up, catabolically down, and periphrasticallly around the Synchronoplastic Infundibulum of my so-called life, snatching out those shreds and threads that traverse the tragectories of the Wikimpedimental Cherry Bureaucracy -- where was I? -- oh yes, here:

Let's get a few things strait right up front. There are many things that Wikipedia Is Not, and here's the beginnings of a List of Nots that I have personally learned to heed:

Another thing we need to get strait is this basic fact:I realize that all of these statements are pretty much no-brainers for people who have spent a little bit of time in the Fictional Universe known as Wikipedia, but some folks may be surprised to find out how many no-brainers fail to be obvious to people who have spent a bit too much time in that Internet Fantasy game.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Getting down to specifics, I find myself thinking of last things first. Some of the policy and pseudo-policy pages where I spent my last days as a "Wikpedian In Good Standing" (WIGS) were on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research page, with a reluctant but forced sidetrip to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines page, plus some pro bono no cher work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. I won't say that my efforts in these particular Kangaroo Courts were the beginning of the end for me, as it's clear that the beginning of the end is always the first time that you cross a ganglion of the ASOTAC, no matter how nubie yubie at the time.

There has been a major battle going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research for the last month or so, with a concerted and vicious attempt by some gung-ho POV-groupies among the ASOTAC to demolish a long-standing consensus policy that formed one of the last bastions that even pretends to guard the quality of WP article sourcing. Here are the recent histories:

I'll be back with the play-by-play and the color commentary later today or maybe tomorrow.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

The Wikiputsch, still in progress, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research was initiated on three separate fronts beginning on 15 Aug 2006.

First, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning attempted to delete the "Non-Negotiability" clause attaching to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. This is the clause that gives this policy the teeth that it needs to trump any pretended consensus -- have you ever seen anything but a pretended consensus in Wikipedia? -- on the part of a small band of editors.

This attempt was eventually beaten back -- but of course, only until such time as all of the defenders against the coup can be banned on account of this or that trumped up offense.

Next, a charge led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slrubenstein was waged on behalf of disallowing the use of primary sources in articles:Quickly bringing up the rear on this second front were the usual suspects of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KillerChihuahua, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin.

At the outset of this campaign, those crusading for a radical change in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research asserted one false statement after another, all to the effect that what they were proposing had been the established policy all along. When challenged to source their claims, they simply abused the questioners for not being in the know and made vague references to folklore that was apparently known only to soi-disant old hands and golden oldies. When data was brought forward that contradicted these claims, they began a campaign of divide and conquer, splitting the talk page into multiple subpages, stealthily deleting many of the objections, and hiding the extent of the dispute in "archives" that somehow somebody just keeps "forgetting" to archive.

By way of providing a single example out of many, consider the following sequence of edits, where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin twice deleted -- with no edit line in one case and with the edit line falsely marked "minor" in the other -- data that established a lower bound on just how long the previous policy had gone unchanged:
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=74061132&oldid=74044198
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=74286464&oldid=74283412
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=74895962&oldid=74864006
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=next&oldid=74907252
After a month of one conscientious objector after another coming forward to bear the brunt of their personal attacks, along with threats of being labelled "disruptive" for the simple act of criticising this force-fed change of policy, they simply refuse to accept the fact that any reporter or scholar with a respect for the quality of facts in any article would be duty-bound to make these same objections to their proposed changes.

A third front was opened up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duncharris, linking the section on "Expert Editors" to one of the minefields of insults that are used to discriminate against editors who use their real names, namely, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines. That monkey business began here:This section was eventually retitled "Citing Oneself" and the link label was deceptively renamed to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines".

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Update on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research front

Now that the Wikiputian QueenBees have banned, blocked, brutalized into submission, or otherwise bound and gagged with their tiny ropes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point stakes any editors who dared to oppose their Wikiputsch with respect to the Big Three P&G's -- no relation to Proctor & Gamble -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning has been given a free hand to undermine the Non-Negotiability clause with the following gem of a stratagem, all designed to subvert the Wiki of Laws into becoming more of what it was probably meant to be from the Get-Go, a totalitarian oligarchy, a Wiki to Power, for glorifying the egos and slush-fundations of the auto-elect few:

You may wonder at the Wikipersistence of this ASOTAC and its WAC jobbers, but you have to realize that these busybodies have nothing else to do with their time, as they certainly don't waste it working on articles in anything but a drive-by hit-&-run slash-&-burn salt-th'-ground way.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Just a suggestion -- the old WP edit counter hasn't been updated since June or July, so it might be useful to add one of the newer ones to the WR sidebar, for instance, this one:

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I am still agonizing over the best way to wring some personal strength from the "Did Not Kill Me" time that I served in the Wikipen -- whether to write a serious documentary or a comic mockumentary. I am by nature leaning toward the latter, but the trouble with satire and the theatre of the absurd is that you have to be able to imagine something more absurd than the original -- and in the case of Wikipedia that daunting task may just fall beyond the limits of my humble imagination.

Another purpose that I had in writing this review was to incite the more able Investigative Journalist (IJ) and the hard-boiled http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick (BAPDA) to take up the baton of policy analysis database creation, a cluestick that I carried for a while but that I am quickly losing the quanta of ergs that it would take to continue.

I have to go looking for some links that I will tack here in a sec ...

Here is a link to a database that I started when I was studying the time (d)evolution of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research :

By the way, I strongly recommend that you make backup HTML copies of any historically sensitive wikipages that you mention here -- not to be too wikiparanoid about it. (Sorry, JohnA, I am sure that it will all come out in the brain-wash as my de-wiki-programming de-wiki-progresses.)

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

People keep raving -- and I do mean raving -- about my altered ego's (No) Exit Interview, so here's a site for the sore eyes who mist all that:

But my reverse chronological retrospective has yet to work it's waybak to the baktrakpoint in question -- so I will have to put off my anamnesis of that earlier trauma till later.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 20th September 2006, 8:09am) *
Here is a link to a database that I started when I was studying the time (d)evolution of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research :
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints
By the way, I strongly recommend that you make backup HTML copies of any historically sensitive wikipages that you mention here...

That's quite exhaustive, actually - it shows that you were really trying to help them make sense of it all, at the very least. And I don't see why they'd want to delete it, even given the fact that you're posting stuff here - it's not like you added nasty comments to it, or anything of that nature.

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 20th September 2006, 12:10pm) *
...I will have to put off my anamnesis of that earlier trauma till later...

"Anamnesis"? Are you a psychologist? That, or a philosophy professor - those are the only two professions from which I'd expect to find someone using a word like that! (Unless you work for the thesaurus company or something...)

I think I can probably speak for all of us when I say there's no need to use highly academic and/or "florid" lingo around here, or at least there's probably less need here than on WP. In some ways it has a negative effect, since journalists and other media-types who might come around looking for stories might literally not be able to decipher what we're saying.

And in particular, that one "Exit Interview" paragraph that fully justified itself in monospace type was exactly the sort of thing professional copy-editors (like I myself used to be, back in the day) would do just to amuse ourselves - this would have been back in the early days of e-mail and Usenet, when there were still people using MS-DOS machines and TelNet sessions for that stuff. We did it just to freak each other out, mostly, and/or to prove we could do it - it's not easy! - but these days, people seeing that might just think you were, well, you know, nuts! huh.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Anamnesis? It's also used by doctors and nurses for history-taking (Hx), and I do consider this to be something like a study in WikiPediatrics, if you catch my semantic drift.

But I'm afraid that playing with words is way too much fun to ever give up. I "normally" make up 12 or 11 new ones every day b4 2nd breakfast, and I used to subscribe to this mailing list that sent me a steady supply of really weird ones every week:

Yes, my 1st word processor -- ha! remember when "WP" meant something really useful? -- was the plain.txt programming editor on my old TI 99/4A that I bought at Toys'R'Us -- darn! no bakword "R" on this editor -- so I learned this bit about justifying my text by automatically picking the right synonyms for everything in site.

¤ Sigh ¤

But enuff about me -- I need to save my waning whining ergs for a bigger basquette.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

You see, the thing that I have come to have against Wikipedia is not just that it dissed me personally, but that it disses all of the things that I have learned to care about in the ways of education, information, and inquiry.

And the personal turining point came for me, not merely when I saw the damage that its gangs of vandals and brownshirtpuppets could wreak on articles and policies that had taken months of conscientious dialogue to work out.

No, I understand about fascists -- that is to say, their actions are consistent with their motives. They are trying to make the world safe for their peculiar form of ignorance. And they act in conformity with achieving that end.

No, the critical moment came for me when I saw the secret sympathy and the sheer symbiosis that all of the rest of those mealy-mouthed mock-menschen maintained with these devolutionary degenerates. The critical light dawned on me when I saw the way that these "goodfolk doing nothing" piously turned a blind eye -- and even winked at times -- perhaps spying some mirage of short-term advantage to themselves, but altogether oblivious to the day when these clockwork orangemen would turn on them.

Tic ...

Toc ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

OK, So WAS 4.250 said nice things about you, SV trashed you, and Guy lost patience. And it's all over the discussion of "What is truth?" Is this moreless the issue?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 2:43pm) *

OK, So WAS 4.250 said nice things about you, SV trashed you, and Guy lost patience. And it's all over the discussion of "What is truth?" Is this moreless the issue?


The events are so painful to recount that I continually avoid recounting them. But I would not trouble this Review with their ilk if continuing observations had not proved them to be generic occurrences, indeed, quintessentially typical instances of how Wikipedia really operates.

There were several turning points in my Wikipedia Year -- each time I did what sensible folk should always do, namely, take a substantial vacation, sans computer, and each time I came back with a fresh outlook, more determined to accomplish something positive, only to be met with the same expectoration.

But the first big disappointment came after a period of a couple of months when a dedicated group of editors had been carefully and respectfully working through each and every wrangle on the Truth article, and I was beginning to think that something truly fine was being accomplished, in the dimensions of content and community both.

That all came crashing down one day in May of 2006 -- I will check the diffs later and amend the data if necessary -- when User:Nathan Ladd came back after a few months absence and immediately started trashing all of the work that had gone before.

I made valiant attempts to accomodate his perspectives, creating whole new sections of the article for the purpose, but nothing short of slash and burn and scorched earth would satsify him.

Simple soul that I was at the time, I expected the group of editors that had been working together over the previous couple of months -- some of whom I had worked with on several related articles and even defended their pet articles in Afd proceedings -- to rise against the mass destruction of hard won content.

But no.

Most of you are smiling at my naivete, so I will leave you to what little pleasure you may derive from this Sad Sack Story and return later on.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

Two comments by Fred Bauder on the Wikilawering/Talk page are worth reviewing


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74326991&oldid=74254163

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74328574&oldid=74326991

the first is

QUOTE
"under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow agreed upon wikipedia policies." No misunderstanding. We are obligated to follow agreed on Wikipedia policies.
these comments related in anyway to your case?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 3:50pm) *

Two comments by Fred Bauder on the Wikilawering/Talk page are worth reviewing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74328574&oldid=74326991

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=74326991&oldid=74254163

the first is

QUOTE

"under the misunderstanding that Wikipedia administrators or the Arbitration Committee are obligated to follow agreed upon wikipedia policies". No misunderstanding. We are obligated to follow agreed on Wikipedia policies.


these comments related in anyway to your case?


Not everything is an Arbcom case.

My experience with the lower rungs of the Celestial Hire-Arrggghhhhy would not find me climbing such a riggedy old shamrackle ladder to clean the debris from that or any other gutter.

There is such a thing as the judgment of common sense. And there needs no court of law nor long litigation to tell us that the Wikipedia community follows neither the letter nor the spirit of its loudly, all too loudly espoused policies.

Case closed.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 5th February 2007, 2:08pm) *
My experience with the lower rungs of the Celestial Hire-Arrggghhhhy...
David Gerard isn't exactly on the lower rungs; he's quite openminded,
QUOTE
It's clear no-one except Jon thinks this is a problem. The floor is now open to him to actually convince anyone else....
next follows up his effort to avoid groupthink with a psychic prediction,
QUOTE
I think it's trivially obvious to predict how the conflict between Jon's ideals and the workings of Wikipedia will eventually be resolved...
hmmm, anyone join in the concensus you building after this....

Incidentally, did you know that Wikipedia "represents the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groupthink&diff=prev&oldid=102679720 use of groupthink". Constructive/productive, whichever; it is after all collaboration. And for a more insightful meaning of the term, see the very next edit: a whole section added, "Iraq war and Bush Adminstration Groupthink".

Posted by: Jonny Cache

As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.

Let us see if we can reach an understanding about this one fact:

Wikipedia can find itself blameless all it wants, in its own imagination, but it will be the outside world and the court of reality that has the ultimate say.

Do these wikipeckerheads naturally seek to know the facts, whether anybody forces them to it or not? That will be what determines whether they find themselves in accord with the judgment of the outside world and the court of reality.

I know what I have observed, and I know where my bets are placed at the present time.

Let the chips fall where they may.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

Let's not discount a Wikipedia version of Perestroika, i.e. in absense of real reform an effort to recycle the same old garbage. And actually Wikipedia is ahead of us with learning disabilities here at WR:

http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2

It appears the Foundation's legal issues have thus far fallen under the Research Department, and this explains why they've been neglected. A Legal Department is now being given more focus, and the search for a General Counsel is now underway.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 5:16pm) *

Let's not discount a Wikipedia version of Perestroika, i.e. in absense of real reform an effort to recycle the same old garbage. And actually Wikipedia is ahead of us with learning disabilities here at WR:

http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2

It appears the Foundation's legal issues have thus far fallen under the Research Department, and this explains why they've been neglected. A Legal Department is now being given more focus, and the search for a General Counsel is now underway.


No doubt Enron had lotsa lawyers, too.

But you can't make an Endrun around reality.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 5th February 2007, 3:00pm) *
As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.
I read the damning evidence; never mind. (Disclaimer: David Gerard did not foster a spirit of groupthink in that discussion, which may have been implied)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:06am) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 12:38pm) *
Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...
That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?
Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 5th February 2007, 3:00pm) *

As often happens I couldn't quite follow what you were saying.


I read the daming evidence; never mind. (Disclaimer: David Gerard did not foster a spirit of groupthink in that discussion, which may have been implied)


Well, there is no evidence, since there was no offense. Not sure what you read, but I'm guessing that what you read are statements, whose factuality or conformity with policy nobody bothered to check. But that is just the Wikipedia Way, de facto speaking.

If yer wondering about de jure -- it's still out.

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:06am) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 12:38pm) *

Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...


That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?


Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?


I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.

Maybe it's anonymous?

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *
Not sure what you read

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=72442677&oldid=72441977

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *

If yer wondering about de jure -- it's still out.

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 6th February 2007, 7:06am) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 5th February 2007, 12:38pm) *

Well is your time in WR a period of cleansing, or spirit of rebellion, that's seems to be the question ...


That all depends : Cleansing, catharsis, purging of what? Rebellion for and against what?


Cleansing from a spirit of rebellion, self-will, and pride. Self examination of failings. Or is it just more of the same (incorrigibility)?


I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.
Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to ( a ) hear the criticism of others ( b ) respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 4:08pm) *
Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to ( a ) hear the criticism of others ( b ) respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".


So what's your excuse, Nobs?

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:01pm) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 4:08pm) *
Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to ( a ) hear the criticism of others ( b ) respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".


So what's your excuse, Nobs?


OK. So WR is not a gulag. It's not a leper colony, either.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *

Not sure what you read …


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=72442677&oldid=72441977

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *

I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.


Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to (a) hear the criticism of others (cool.gif respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".


The statement you quoted was a heartfelt sentiment. I later retracted it as being ad hominem and intemperate. That is not to say that it was false. Viewed in current perspective, I would have to say that my heart was in the right place the first time.

Pride? Hubris? Welcome to the human race. But some indignation is righteous, motivated by principles that would be recognizable to any person of common sense and moderate good will toward others, and that is just what I was exercising in that case. The continuing use of the term "Wikilawyering" -- in the way that it is used on that official Wikipedia page -- remains as defamatory as any other prejudicial slur. The need to change the name should have been a complete no-brainer.

Ay, there's the rub.

I was operating on what Wikipedia pretends to be its principles when I amended that usage, just as I would have automatically corrected any flagrant violation of the WP:MOS at the time. And my correction of the defamatory term was subsequently reinforced by Fred Bauder's more "term of arty" change to WP:Pettifoggery.

What I did not know at the time is that anyone who actually has the nerve to demand that Wikipedia live up to its principles is himself liable to be labeled a "Wikilawyer".

Imagine my surprise.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 7:10pm) *

OK. So WR is not a gulag. It's not a leper colony, either.


Please try to understand. For many of us, Wikipedia is not the center of our universe, nor is it our ultimate concern. It is merely a noxious influence that has leaked out of the Usenet and has come to have a largely deleterious impact on a few of the things that do fall within the compass of our ultimate concerns. The fact that it may be popular in a certain population of internet users impresses us about as much as saying that the bird flu is popular in a certain population of birds.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: nobs

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 8th February 2007, 5:48am) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *

Not sure what you read ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering&diff=72442677&oldid=72441977

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 7th February 2007, 2:11pm) *

I can't seem to identify the subject of your sentence.


Rebellion. And the self-critical examination many of us fail to engage in as an on going process. Sometimes a person reaches a point were they get "pufffed up in pride", so to speak, and fail to (a) hear the criticism of others (cool.gif respond to the criticism of others. This I refered to as "cleansing".


Pride? Hubris? Welcome to the human race. But some indignation is righteous, motivated by principles that would be recognizable to any person of common sense and moderate good will toward others, and that is just what I was exercising in that case.
Amen bro, to most of that. Most people don't want to have thier sins smeared in their face tho.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 8th February 2007, 5:48am) *
The continuing use of the term "Wikilawyering" -- in the way that it is used on that official Wikipedia page -- remains as defamatory as any other prejudicial slur. The need to change the name should have been a complete no-brainer.
Let me dissent in a technical point: using "defamatory" here may not be as effective as finding a better term to illustrate a particularly valid point. "Defamatory", in the legal sense, as I understand it, should be employed when discussing damages to specific named individuals, not a broad group or class of persons. That use lessens the impact of the meaning. I wholey agree because I base all my postings in whatever forum on the premise, "my word is my bond" and strive for internal logic and consistancy. Sounding "lawyer-like" is really the best or only way to do this. Wikilawyering is a mistaken pejorative, and the endless discussion over how 'Wikipedia is not a social club', directly conflicts with this pejorative. Its just one big problem, of dozens if not hundreds of big problems, Wikipedia is confronted with.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 8th February 2007, 5:48am) *
And my correction of the defamatory term was subsequently reinforced by Fred Bauder's more "term of arty" change to WP:Pettifoggery.
Bauder strives for internal consistancy, and I can point out his failings (as I'm sure he can mine). The issue returns to a basic premise of "lawyering", Assume Good Faith. While I have evidence of a lack of good faith in several instances, I'm truelly torn in a working relationship to pass judgement. Specifically, his statement to SlimVirgin here:
QUOTE
You also protected a page that you were actively editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FRangerdude%2FWorkshop&diff=28511278&oldid=28510546, no one had removed what you had contributed, nor was protection called for by any arbitration decision, but you did it.
Hence, I am reluctant to place Fred Bauder among the group of editors acting in concert who set out with malicious intent to smear Daniel Brandt. More evidence and investigation is needed.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Look, it's simple common sense.

That page exploited a derogatory stereotype of one segment of society, namely lawyers, to construct a pejorative term for a certain type of conduct. All jokes aside, it is simply inappropriate usage for an official policy or guideline page, and even though I think it has been demoted to an "essay" page now, it is still often cited.

There are appropriate terms of art that are commonly used in debate, law, and philosophy to describe the conduct in question, for instance, cavilling, pettifoggery, or quibbling. Any one of those would have done the job without exploiting a derogatory stereotype.

That is simple common sense. Arguing against common sense is commonly known as cavilling, pettifoggery, or quibbling.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Well, it's been a riot, but I caught myself signing Jonny Cache on a bankcard slip the other day -- and that's a sure sign I need a little vacation. The upkeep on one ego is all I can really afford.

After while ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

In accordance with the all too familiar Wikipedia Policy WP:UHOH (Utterly Hopelessly Obliterate History), the Wikipedia Policy Talk Page Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints that I referred to several times above has now been "disappeared" -- some of you will remember the Wikipedia co-founder Augusto WikiPinochet -- but I did keep an archival copy of it at Wikinfo, here:

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Somey

Hmm... They didn't delete it entirely. Slimmy moved it to a subpage of your user page, so it's now here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/NOR_historical_datapoints

But she then deleted the redirect in order to break the existing links. She sure is clever! Luckily, this board has a fancy high-tech search function which allows me to go back through and find all of those links and fix 'em. But oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that! Because as soon as I do, she'll move the subpage, and then delete the redirect to that too! Curses, foiled again!

Still, we'll try it this one time, and see what happens. My guess is that it's gone by April 1st...

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 3rd March 2007, 1:18am) *

Hmm ... They didn't delete it entirely. Slimmy moved it to a subpage of your user page, so it's now here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/NOR_historical_datapoints

But she then deleted the redirect in order to break the existing links. She sure is clever! Luckily, this board has a fancy high-tech search function which allows me to go back through and find all of those links and fix 'em. But oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that! Because as soon as I do, she'll move the subpage, and then delete the redirect to that too! Curses, foiled again!

Still, we'll try it this one time, and see what happens. My guess is that it's gone by April 1st ...


If you look at the last diff you'll see that she really did nothing but delete the Policy Talk page, as I already had a copy in my user space — I just forgot that it was there.

Doesn't matter, as I have other copies. And nobody here has any illusions about their honesty anymore.

The really ironic thing is that Slim & Friends have their own personal, highly "original" theory of sourced research, and they are simply engaging in a very relentless brand of POV pushing on that score, including the bashing and the banning of anybody who tells them different. There is nothing anybody can really do about that anymore. They will continue to warp Wikipedia sourcing policy until its idiosyncrasies and ulterior motives become clear even to your average Fox Network Fifth Grader.

All we can do is keep pointing and laughing at the Imperious Leader's Bare Ass. They keep covering it with Slim Sarah Rap and they think that it's opaque to the rest of us.

Imagine that.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

What we really have here is a case where a Wikipedia Policy Talk Page was deleted without notice — so far as I know there is no such thing as a Discussion Page For Deletion procedure — plus a history-destroying move of the contents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Historical_datapoints

Now why would SlimVirgin be so anxious to cloud the history of WP:NOR?

I guess that you will just have to read the Current Devs on the Wikening List in order to find out why, not that I would wish that on anybody ...

Well — the people that I might wish it on are there already ...

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Note. Just storing an extra copy of this narrative here, for ease of retrieval when I get around to writing up my memoirs, WR:BOTQTDOTOP.

Looking back through some really old emails, I see that I was working on open source wikioid β-phase projects like http://philip.greenspun.com's http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2002/FAQ_ArsDigita.html and http://mitpress.mit.edu/'s http://cognet.mit.edu/ in 2000, and on Jack Park's http://www.nexist.org/ Wiki in 2001. I recall Jack saying something about some people starting a wiki-based encyclopedia, but it didn't look so hot when I first looked at it. In 2004 or 2005 or so, I remember people on the http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/?forum=peirce-l complaining about the abject nonsense that various Wikipedia articles said about Peirce's philosophy, and what a gawdawful WIKI-PITA it was trying to fix it and having to fight with some ½-wit tyro who read a ½-chapter of some pop phil book that made him an expert on Peirce. But I did not get tempted to sign on Wikipedia until December 2005 when said WikiPutrescence kept showing up at the top of my routine Gargoyle searches on Peirce-related topics.

Jonny cool.gif

Posted by: Jonny Cache

On Reciprocity —

I entered Wikipedia on the basis of a promise that it still advertizes, that it would be possible to fix its errors. I operated under my own name and according to the guidelines of good scholarship. I created many articles that were missing and I improved every article that I worked on right up until I encountered impassable obstacles in the attitudes of "editors" whose ignorance of the relevant methods, practices, and subject matters would be evident to anyone who had assimilated even as much education as I acquired in high school, much less college, much less grad school.

I found myself being abused, attacked, and harassed by "editors" who operated under names like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Banno, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwernol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim62sch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kenosis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KillerChihuahua, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slrubenstein, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SnowFire, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin, plus a host of numbered accounts and temporary pseudonyms. The utterance and publication of their outright lies is maintained to this day in the pages and files of Wikipedia.

Who the hell are these people? I have a right to know.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Joseph100

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 19th October 2007, 11:10pm) *

On Reciprocity —

I entered Wikipedia on the basis of a promise that it still advertizes, that it would be possible to fix its errors. I operated under my own name and according to the guidelines of good scholarship. I created many articles that were missing and I improved every article that I worked on right up until I encountered impassable obstacles in the attitudes of "editors" whose ignorance of the relevant methods, practices, and subject matters would be evident to anyone who had assimilated even as much education as I acquired in high school, much less college, much less grad school.

I found myself being abused, attacked, and harassed by "editors" who operated under names like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Banno, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwernol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KillerChihuahua, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin. The utterance and publication of their outright lies is maintained to this day in the pages and files of Wikipedia.

Who the hell are these people? I have a right to know.

Jon Awbrey


They are people who have deep hatred for the truth, weak morals, and a narcissistic love of them selfs as well as they all are certifiable Sociopaths.

Also, RYULONG IS A COWARD, LIAR, and a SNEAK THIEF of peoples reputations and hard work.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Sat 20th October 2007, 1:40am) *

They are people who have deep hatred for the truth, weak morals, and a narcissistic love of themselves, as well as they all are certifiable Sociopaths.


Strictly speaking that doesn't tell me who they are — it's only a list of characteristics that apply more or less or not at all to the general ruin of individuals that I encountered.

Though I did not encounter Ryulong — not that I recall — in my heyday at Wikipedia, his conduct does epitomize many of the characteristics that concern and dismay me the most. Perhaps most worrisome of all is that Hell Bent Automatism, that Gung Ho Robot Drone Behaviour of the mechanical martinet who never stops to ask whether the orders he is snapping to are justified or not. Unthinking following of orders is a dangerous habit to get into at the tender age of 8, or 20, or 32, or whatever count our Crusader Bunny jumps to.

Jon Awbrey