Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Meta Discussion _ â–‘ Noise â–‘
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Cheers & Jeers From The Wiki-Peanut Galley
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 7th June 2009, 1:19pm) 
1. Wikipedia is ever improving.
2. Wikipedia is better than dusty, old reference books, because you can update it instantly.
3. Wikipedia is great in spite of any faults one might find in the WMF management.
4. Some of Wikipedia is a bit problematic, but most of it is awesome.
You might want to say something about how witty and nubile their "editors" are. That's the main reason I go there.
Posted by: TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 7th June 2009, 4:56pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 7th June 2009, 10:14am)
The recent inflush of pseudencyclopædiots to our commodious vicinitudes is currently generating ever more effluvious volumes of That Which Affects To Care About Critical Knowledge (WP:TWATCACK) than The Wikipedia Review has ever had to sift before.
The time is then ripe — overripe I say — to solve and coagulate from the e-maelstrom of encroaching mire the more recurrent rimes of non-sense that threaten to engulf our critical faculties with the drone of their unyielding irrationality.
Jon
Hard to know what to do. The problem is that a very significant number of the "users" of WR are either outright pro-Wikipedians here to sabotage critique or have such a watered down notion of what "critique"ought to consist of that they might as well be here to sabotage the place. In the past this has been addressed by cyclical confrontations of the pro-Wkipedians by the "hardliners" and serious critics in which the pro-Wikipedians have been more or less put down. But there is no denying that with each cycle the influx of pro-Wikipedians increases and there is certainly no guarantee that they won't eventually overwhelm the place once and for all.
In any event more or less serious criticism has had a good run on the review and I'm certainly grateful for having had the chance to learn from the likes of yourself, Brandt, Kato, Kelly, even Moulton on a good day, as well as the current staff/mods and those pro-Wikipedians of good faith who have engaged in debate on an honest level.
Hell Ya, you're either with us or you're against us, isn't that right GlassBeadGame. I think it's definately time to start drawing up lists.
With you and Jon in the lead just think of where this site could go!
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 15th May 2009, 8:38am)
Cheers & Jeers From The Wiki-Peanut Galley
Rats, I forgot that Jon could move posts in "his" forum.
Somey, it might be kind of fun if you'd let him do this in the main forum as well.
Posted by: TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 7th June 2009, 4:56pm)
The problem is that a very significant number of the "users" of WR are either outright pro-Wikipedians here to sabotage critique or have such a watered down notion of what "critique"ought to consist of that they might as well be here to sabotage the place...
Posted by: dtobias
One reason Wikback died was due to annoying (and sometimes banning) its users with anal-retentive moderation and thread-moving.
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 7th June 2009, 3:02pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 7th June 2009, 12:14pm)
The recent inflush of pseudencyclopædiots to our commodious vicinitudes is currently generating ever more effluvious volumes of That Which Affects To Care About Critical Knowledge (WP:TWATCACK) than The Wikipedia Review has ever had to sift before.
As opposed to the serious, useful stuff like quotes from James Joyce, and even bad song parodies.
Awbrey, could you move Dan's post to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24751?
I tire of Wikipedian fanboys intruding boorishly into our vibrant salon.
The, um, cruft is unbearable.
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 7th June 2009, 3:08pm)
One reason Wikback died was due to annoying (and sometimes banning) its users with anal-retentive moderation and thread-moving.
Well, I'm sorry I missed it.
Posted by: TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 7th June 2009, 4:56pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 7th June 2009, 10:14am)
The recent inflush of pseudencyclopædiots to our commodious vicinitudes is currently generating ever more effluvious volumes of That Which Affects To Care About Critical Knowledge (WP:TWATCACK) than The Wikipedia Review has ever had to sift before.
The time is then ripe — overripe I say — to solve and coagulate from the e-maelstrom of encroaching mire the more recurrent rimes of non-sense that threaten to engulf our critical faculties with the drone of their unyielding irrationality.
Jon
Hard to know what to do. The problem is that a very significant number of the "users" of WR are either outright pro-Wikipedians here to sabotage critique or have such a watered down notion of what "critique"ought to consist of that they might as well be here to sabotage the place. In the past this has been addressed by cyclical confrontations of the pro-Wkipedians by the "hardliners" and serious critics in which the pro-Wikipedians have been more or less put down. But there is no denying that with each cycle the influx of pro-Wikipedians increases and there is certainly no guarantee that they won't eventually overwhelm the place once and for all.
In any event more or less serious criticism has had a good run on the review and I'm certainly grateful for having had the chance to learn from the likes of yourself, Brandt, Kato, Kelly, even Moulton on a good day, as well as the current staff/mods and those pro-Wikipedians of good faith who have engaged in debate on an honest level.
Enter the Twilight zone, where throngs of "outright pro-Wikipedians here to sabotage" the Review.
Posted by: Avirosa
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 24th July 2010, 4:32pm)
As for the rest of Amanita's Angelic Deconstructions, I confess that I have trouble reading the sorts of things that I have read a thousand times before — from people who are clearly talking through their caps about things they know not of, and who cannot be bothered to do so much as the minimal homework of reading what the rest of us have actually written here.
But perhaps it's just that I'm sorely pressed for time today, so maybe I'll try to scrape up a few extra bits of asperation later on.
Jon
You don’t have to feel obliged, o meister singer to trill a song for our eddy-fication around the intricacies of your learning. And if you want this place kept as a pure monument to your Marvinesque capacities, then put up a "Keep Out" sign to dissuade us mere planetoids from lowering the tone. But don’t confuse non appreciation of your analyses with ignorance of your past escritions – it may simply be that you ain’t agreed with, that your thousand times considerations have yielded no effulgence and someone else has sump-thing to propound which they reckon you have yet to grope or grok or gurn.
A.virosa
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Avirosa @ Sun 25th July 2010, 5:33am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 24th July 2010, 4:32pm)
As for the rest of Amanita's Angelic Deconstructions, I confess that I have trouble reading the sorts of things that I have read a thousand times before — from people who are clearly talking through their caps about things they know not of, and who cannot be bothered to do so much as the minimal homework of reading what the rest of us have actually written here.
But perhaps it's just that I'm sorely pressed for time today, so maybe I'll try to scrape up a few extra bits of asperation later on.
Jon
You don’t have to feel obliged, o meister singer to trill a song for our eddy-fication around the intricacies of your learning. And if you want this place kept as a pure monument to your Marvinesque capacities, then put up a "Keep Out" sign to dissuade us mere planetoids from lowering the tone. But don’t confuse non appreciation of your analyses with ignorance of your past escritions – it may simply be that you ain’t agreed with, that your thousand times considerations have yielded no effulgence and someone else has sump-thing to propound which they reckon you have yet to grope or grok or gurn.But perhaps it's just that I'm sorely pressed for time today, so maybe I'll try to scrape up a few extra bits of asperation later on.
Jon
A.virosa
That was a damn good parody.
My hat is off to you, good sir.
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 25th July 2010, 11:38am)
That was a damn good parody.
Pastiche, even.
Posted by: KStreetSlave
Can we just make all of your incoherent, rambling, faux-witty posts go here? That would be stellar.
Posted by: Text
QUOTE
Can we just make all of your incoherent, rambling, faux-witty posts go here?
Come on, his posts are often cryptic but once you get a good decoder they're quite interesting!
Posted by: Zoloft
Edit: Oh, my post was moved here. All right.
I will try to use this generously provided space wisely.
Thesis:
What happens when genius and talent turn inward?
- Arrogance?
- Obsession?
- Irrelevance?
- Narcissism?
- Free-floating Hostility?
- Madness?
Let's go hunting for examples...
Posted by: KStreetSlave
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 8th March 2011, 9:48pm)
QUOTE
What Wikipedia Teaches
I strongly believe in a life of learning by doing.
And what I see people learning by doing in Wikipedia is a life of moral and intellectual cowardice.
Whether it happens by nature or by accident I don't really care, but I can hardly help but rejoice that any fraction of humanity is spared that manner of learning by doing.
Jon Awbrey
Nice moderation there, deleting posts you don't like.
One might almost say very wikipedian of you Jon.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Wed 9th March 2011, 7:18pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 8th March 2011, 9:48pm)
QUOTE
What Wikipedia Teaches
I strongly believe in a life of learning by doing.
And what I see people learning by doing in Wikipedia is a life of moral and intellectual cowardice.
Whether it happens by nature or by accident I don't really care, but I can hardly help but rejoice that any fraction of humanity is spared that manner of learning by doing.
Jon Awbrey
Nice moderation there, deleting posts you don't like.
Didn't delete it, moved it.
Try reading the purpose of the thread next time.
QUOTE
One might almost say very wikipedian of you, Jon.
I suppose we could ban you just for saying that.
Maybe that would instruct you in the differences.
Jon
Posted by: Zoloft
How cute.
Your own Tarpit. Or perhaps a briar patch.
Just remember the wisdom of Joel Chandler Harris...
