"Wikipedia Forever" - fundraising campaign, or non-stop laff riot? Options

[Malleus]

I also noted Wales's stupid argument that 3 million articles is just about 'done'. Old farts know that quantity is not to be confused with quality.

Three million articles might well be "just about done", if they were the right three million articles.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:02am

[grievous]

A lot of drama could have been avoided if only Daniel Brandt had known that all it would have taken was $5K to delete his bio.

I'm fairly certain that blackmail is, you know, um, kind of illegal......

Well I suppose that threatening to disclose personally identifiable information unless one gets their way would fall under the definition of blackmail too, but who's counting.

A $5k contribution seems to have been proven to be a much easier route to deletion. Much easier and effective than blow jobs in 5-star hotels on the WMF dime. But at least if that doesn't work you can sell the residuals on eBay.

[the_undertow]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.' If there are other public accountants here, please don't let me take the limelight. Report here Not only is this quite unacceptable in the business realm, but the lack of annotation, and the focus on imagery is what one would expect from a company that owns an image farm.

Actually, thinking about Commons, this is what shareholders are given. This is what they expect. This is why donations are called upon, because investors would rather see a Shankbone shot of a vagina (not sure that exisits) then what Wikimedia considers to be a financial report. When the US goes IASB, fuck us all, and when I say that, I mean this endeavor may be strong as not for profit, fail as 'one uses it everyday' and even worse for what can pass as a business. 14 employees, with 'hopes' to gain 6 more, makes this nothing more than a site that has top rankings in Google, and nothing else.

I'm certainly not dogging out those who contribute, but if my own contribution can show how financial papers look like a Kinko's copy of doom - it will only be allowed until the rest of the world forces the US to produce a decent FAR. This is a joke.

A sick joke. And when wales says that many rely on WP 'every day,' God help us if we, who have doctors, lawyers, and parents, actually do rely on a site where you may be in the middle of a hysterectomy, but you are relying on a generally stable article, where another editor, IP or registered, has changed the venue, before you make that final stitch.

[victim of censorship]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.' If there are other public accountants here, please don't let me take the limelight. Report here Not only is this quite unacceptable in the business realm, but the lack of annotation, and the focus on imagery is what one would expect from a company that owns an image farm.

Actually, thinking about Commons, this is what shareholders are given. This is what they expect. This is why donations are called upon, because investors would rather see a Shankbone shot of a vagina (not sure that exisits) then what Wikimedia considers to be a financial report. When the US goes IASB, fuck us all, and when I say that, I mean this endeavor may be strong as not for profit, fail as 'one uses it everyday' and even worse for what can pass as a business. 14 employees, with 'hopes' to gain 6 more, makes this nothing more than a site that has top rankings in Google, and nothing else.

I'm certainly not dogging out those who contribute, but if my own contribution can show how financial papers look like a Kinko's copy of doom - it will only be allowed until the rest of the world forces the US to produce a decent FAR. This is a joke.

A sick joke. And when wales says that many rely on WP 'every day,' God help us if we, who have doctors, lawyers, and parents, actually do rely on a site where you may be in the middle of a hysterectomy, but you are relying on a generally stable article, where another editor, IP or registered, has changed the venue, before you make that final stitch.

A resurrected classic...

************************************************************

If surgery was like Wikipedia:

Several surgipedians have gathered in an operation theater. On the table lies an unconscious man whos left leg looks dark. Surgipedian #1 grabs a sheet prepared by the patient's doctor that details the problem.

Surgipedian #1: "Whoa, he's been lying here for 26 hours, we sure got a backlog again. It also says on this that he has a 'claudication' and a 'chronic venous insufficiency' in the left leg", looks at right leg, "and we are asked to do a 'leg segmental arterial doppler ultrasound exam'. Whatever that is. His leg looks pretty good to me".

Surgipedian #2: "You looked at the wrong leg. It says the left one".

Surgipedian #1: "I looked at the left and it's looking totally normal!"

Surgipedian #2: "The left from his point of view! Do you know where your left leg is?"

Surgipedian #3: "No need for shouting, #2, please remember Surgipedia guideline 'Assume Good Faith'. #1 was just trying to be constructive!"

Surgipedian #2: "I was only trying to be constructive, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Well, let's just get to back to this guy."

Surgipedian #1, feeling securely at the helm again: "I remember something I read once on a website about heart diseases; when your arms or legs turn dark, you got a heart problem".

Surgipedian #3: "Yup, you are right. It's something about the veins in the heart being clogged up."

Surgipedian #2, feeling outdone: "I think it's something about having not enough oxygen in your blood!"

Surgipedian #1: "Can you cite a source for that?"

Surgipedian #2: "My aunt Thelma had something like that and I wrote a paper about it for my biology class at school!"

Surgipedian #3: "Please remember Surgipedia guideline: No Original Research! Let's get back to the man's heart problem! What should we do?"

Surgipedian #1: "I think you need to cut open his ribs and give him a heart massage or clean the veins or something".

Surgipedian #3: "Sounds reasonable. After all, when you get a massage to your back, the blood there flows better as well. I just wrote an article about it".

Surgipedian #2: "Heh, that is original research, too!"

Surgipedian #3: "Several surgipedians agreed on that article to be correct. Are you trying to be a nuisance or do you want to do that man some good?"

Surgipedian #2: "Of course!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then please stay constructive! How do we cut the man's ribs?"

Surgipedian #1: "You need a saw or something."

Surgipedian #3: "A saw? Surgeons use scalpels when they operate. I think you just need to cut a hole and poke your fingers through".

Without further ado, he grabs a scalpel and cuts a hole approximately where the heart is and sticks two fingers through.

Surgipedian #3: "I can't reach the heart, my fingers are not long enough!"

Surgipedian #2: "Then do that thing with the veins!"

Surgipedian #3: "How do you do that?"

Surgipedian #2 "Well, my aunt Thelma finally had something they call a bypass and they cut open the veins, I think".

Surgipedian #3: "But that is orig..., well let's try it. But I will have to push in the scalpel pretty deep to reach the heart. Shall we do it?"

Surgipedian #1, #2: "Support".

Surgipedian #3 remembers Surgipedia guideline "Be Bold!", grabs the scalpel in his fist and swings his arm in preparation of a deep push into the hole, but at that moment a surgeon comes by.

Surgeon: "Stop! What in the world are you doing?"

Surgipedian #3: The man has a problem in his leg and we are going to cut his heart veins open".

Surgeon: "What? All I see is a man with vascular problem in his leg and another that wields a scalpel like a knife. Are you aware that pushing a scalpel into someone's heart will kill that person?"

Surgipedian #1: "We have decided by majority that this is the proper thing to do. Besides, can you prove that pushing a scalpel into someones heart is deadly?"

Surgeon: "You decided by MAJORITY? Are you all nuts?"

Surgipedian #2 feels that there is finally someone besides him to put down: "Please, no personal attacks!"

Surgeon: "I will fucking personal attack you if you endanger someones life!"

Surgipedian #3: "We need to call an admin!"

Surgeon: "Alright, do that, but put that scalpel down!"

An admin comes by.

Admin: "I have heard that a guest is violating Surgipedia rules".

Surgeon: "I am a surgeon and these people are about to kill this man by pushing a knife into his heart!"

Admin: "Reviewing the archived discussion, you are in violation of rules Surgipedia: Assume Good Faith, Surgipedia: Vandalism, Surgipedia: Neutral Point of View, Surgipedia: No Personal Attacks, Surgipedia: Avoid Weasel Words and Surgipedia: Do not disrupt Surgipedia to make a point. You will be blocked from accessing Surgipedia for one week. Please use the time to review

Surgipedia guidelines and rules".

Admin and desperate Surgeon leave.

Surgipedian #3: "Okay, where were we?"

Surgipedian #2: "You were about to cut his heart."

Surgipedian #3: "Yup. I propose that so-called 'surgeon' was just a troll and we should go ahead."

Surgipedian #1 and #2: "Agree".

Surgipedian #3 slams the scalpel into the man's heart, who is dead within moments.

Surgipedian #3: "Why did he die?"

Surgipedian #1: "It's his fault. There was nothing WE did wrong!"
[All guidelines and policies mentioned in this satire do exist in Wikipedia.


************************************************************
Wikipedia has evolved to this very evil and hateful enterprise. The lies, the misdeeds, the
hurt Wikipedia causes, every single day, is piling up and some day, the protection and the abuse of said protection (section 230) will be modified to allow Wikipedia to be exposed and accountable to the people.

I also noted Wales's stupid argument that 3 million articles is just about 'done'. Old farts know that quantity is not to be confused with quality.

Three million articles might well be "just about done", if they were the right three million articles.

Yeah... Quality articles, for the children like this one about
Snowballing .

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 24th November 2009, 12:49pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'

Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all?

[victim of censorship]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'

Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all?

The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron.

Big Sue is making a real killing as queen of the hive.

[Sarcasticidealist]

The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron.

Really? "Ethical" contradicts "code"? You'll have to explain that to me sometime, maybe in a thread that has even the remotest relationship to a "Wikipedia ethical code".

I'm talking about the kind of ethical code that prevents accountants from spouting off on internet message boards about the "slight [sic] of hand" used by named companies they audit.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:13pm

[victim of censorship]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

The Wikipedia operations fund is just a personal slush fund for BIG SUE, JIMMY, and all the meatballs at the wiki club house. Proper accounting and accountable to the money is not a concept what would fit well with the lifestyle of an internet rock star.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:21pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms.

[victim of censorship]

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms.

So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America?

[Sarcasticidealist]

So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America?

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying.

[victim of censorship]

So your implying that Wikipedia a "sovereign state" which supersedes the law of the United States of America?

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying.

redirection... a trait I seen used a great deal on wiki...

THE POINT, for the unknowing is this....


WIKIPEDIA is a JUNGLE of Lies, Misappropriation, Slander, Liable.

Wikipedia run by irresponsible, power drunk assholes, whose over-site, over a web site with such dominion on the internet, is a disgrace.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Tue 24th November 2009, 1:31pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying.

WIKIPEDIA is a JUNGLE of Lies, Misappropriation, Slander, Liable.

Wikipedia run by irresponsible, power drunk assholes, whose over-site, over a web site with such dominion on the internet, is a disgrace.

You're very good at this.

[One]

Not since I audited Hilton have I ever seen this much slight of hand in a 'financial report.'

Um, does the professional association to which you presumably belong have any ethical code at all?

The concept of "ethical code" used to describe "Wikipeidia" is a laughable oxymoron.

A true apologist. People, like you, are like the mother who cries.... Johnnie not a bad boy, while Johnnie is on trial for mass murder.

Lets have no mistake or mis-understanding, Wikipedia has no system of governance, no rules. The only system Wikipedia has is gang rule, corruption, and jungle law.

Think of Wikipedia to be a failed state, run like Somalia. The rule of guns, gangs, and warlords.

There's a school of thought that holds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statist institution, enhancing the power of courts to impose social change without the request or consent of the populace. That school of thought overlooks, though, that the Charter is designed to empower the individual in the face of the state; the only entities subject to it are public entities (i.e. organs of the state), and in virtually all cases the restrictions it imposes prevent those entities from infringing on individual freedoms.

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a contest to see who could come up with the comment that was least related to the post to which it was putatively replying.

Heh.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 24th November 2009, 6:06pm

[thekohser]

They are up to $5.8 million received. It makes me sick, but what are you going to do?

[wikademia.org]

They are up to $5.8 million received. It makes me sick, but what are you going to do?

fork

[Text]

They are up to $5.8 million received. It makes me sick, but what are you going to do?

Do searches with the parameter "-wikipedia"

[EricBarbour]

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I gave $20 back in August 05 when I was a naive n00b.
I've felt like a sucker ever since.
Especially after Danny later stated that every donation of $20 or more back then got a personal thank you-a-gram...I never got mine

[Trick cyclist]

I suppose its easy to use Wikipedia to win a bet. You insert some silly nonsense and ensure that its apparently well referenced so it will stay for a while. Alternatively you find some silly nonsense that's been in for a month or two so is unlikely to vanish. You then bet its true and bingo. Has anyone here ever done that?