|
|
|
How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed |
|
|
aeon |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
Member No.: 7,214
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:28pm) After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.
I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.
For all your destructive designs, your userpage says you're "in retirement [–] until October 3 2009." (dash my own for obvious effect). Seriously PD, what the hell? I find your labelling of the community as "not normal" a bit ironic; I don't think a person who has retired and then returned and then bitterly left again saying "wah wah, I want to destroy Wikipedia!" and who is so obviously in a love-hate affair with Wikipedia can be called "normal" either. You can't even retire properly (..."until October 3 2009"). Get out of limbo land. Make up your mind to either stay or leave. The pitifulness of the situation is reaching sickening heights, and no-one's fooled by this latest proclamation of anti-Wikipedianism. And before anyone points out to me that I'm making a nuisance of myself, this is part of my 35%. This post has been edited by aeon:
|
|
|
|
Nerd |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:11pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 2:44pm) Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas. Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction. The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there. QUOTE They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed. That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.
|
|
|
|
Nerd |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:51pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm) QUOTE They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed. That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though. Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up? Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 6:52pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:51pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm) QUOTE They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.
That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though. Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up? Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else. Always remember, "Nerd" is "Nerd" spelled forwards. Ja Ja (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
|
|
|
|
Guido den Broeder |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:28pm) After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.
I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.
They don't need to be moved. With all the barking mad people safely locked inside the luny hospital named Wikipedia, we can simply start anew elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 3:11pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 2:44pm) Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas. Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction. The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there. Good, because you're already past the bounds of what is known or even reasonable. How do we know the requirements of simple user account registration (have a paid email account which you probably have anyway, and put in the gigantic mental effort to select a username and password) are such a horrible disincentive to drive-by editing? Particularly when they get you out of having to do the stupid CAPTCHA anytime you add a weblink, which you're often doing anyway if you're doing any editing of any value (which will include some weblinks surely in your cites). The time you lose creating a username is paid back almost immediately in CAPTCHAs not seen. Same for the extra stuff you get like ability to send email to others and upload images. And if you want to edit protected Wikis (a larger and larger fraction) you have to register and wait out the confirmation time. Okay, so you have to wait 4 days-- again big deal. In 4 days, you're going to be the same place you are now, except 4 days older and without the ability to edit sprotected stuff if you didn't make the necessary application 4 days ago. This is not NOT a good argument. It's been made by the WMF for years and there's NOTHING logical behind it. If you ask them, their evidence consists of some francophone fr.wikis where the IP vandalism doesn't remotely resemble en.wiki's, which find that most of the good editing (for a very small group of editors with very few edits) is done by IPs. In France and Belgium. So what? Most of the IP-vandalism done here, isn't done by ANYBODY over there, because they aren't big vandals even when they ARE IP-users. What does that tell you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Nothing! It tells you that, for over here, you don't know. Which, as Socrates reminds us, is sometimes a good place to start.
|
|
|
|
victim of censorship |
|
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,166
Joined:
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:28pm) After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.
I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.
AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations. Wikipedia should be closed down, the Domain sold, the data base purged and the servers sold and monies realized, be given to a worth charity.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 4:28pm) I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others. It probably depends on whether they're to be treated as addicts, criminals, cult-brainwashing victims, abuse victims, or ordinary lunatics. Being a charitable sort myself, I'd prefer to think of them as victims of some sort or other, but of course that's hard cheese on the people they've victimized. From a psychological perspective I'd say "cult-brainwashing victims" is the closest to what the really hardcore ones are, but that's a small minority. Another possibility is to create a whole new category for them, but then someone would have to come up with a name for the category, and "Wikipediots" is too silly-sounding to bring in any serious public-health money. Anyhoo, this is all theoretical, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |