JzG's biggest mistake, Disparaging Cade Metz Options

[Kato]

The biggest mistake JzG has made on Wikipedia, the one that people should really be looking at closely, was his reaction to The Register stories in December.

This is described at the foot of this Wikipedia Review blog posting here. JzG's wild overreaction had him attacking people all over Wikipedia and the internet, and included the now infamous "Piece of shit Register story" attack. His attacks were accompanied by several disparaging references to Cade Metz, the journalist who was covering the stories, and obviously reading every word.

This totally unprofessional and self destructive flurry sealed Wikipedia's fate in the eyes of the media in one foul swoop. All the editors, all the articles, Jimbo Wales, the WMF, Wikia, everything was up for grabs as a result of that stupid, thoughtless attack.

Metz immediately shot off another article to the million or so readers of that magazine. And then peeled a Wikipedia Review thread about Jossi Fresco straight off our forums to hit them again in the New Year.

The media realized that stories on Wikipedia corruption brought in readers. And where better to get them from than places like the Wikipedia Review? Journalists were investigating stories from here for themselves, and figuring that many of them held up under scrutiny.

By the time ValleyWag was linking to one of our threads about Rachel Marsden, after Wikipedia had so successfully shot themselves in the foot again and again since December, Wikipedia was easy pickings for the media.

Yesterday, Cade Metz wrote another piece, which accurately depicts Wikipedia's predicament. It articulates exactly what Wikipedia Reviewers have been telling Wikipedia for a long time. But they didn't listen over there. Naive folks like JzG kept attacking and attacking, until Wikipedia resembles an open corpse. Food for the vultures.

JzG publicly personified Wikipedia's inability to process external criticism. And everyone on the site, from the best editors to the worst administrators, have paid a heavy price for this appalling attitude. The price will be the cruel and relentless public discrediting of all their hard work in the coming months and years at the hands of an uncaring media.

In the future, when historians look at Wikipedia as a bizarre 2000-2010 phenomenon that eventually collapsed, they won't be putting the blame on external Websites like us. Or critics like Daniel Brandt or Jon Awbrey. They'll be putting the blame on naive people like JzG, who positioned themselves as tub-thumpers and opinion formers for a community who didn't ask them to do so, and who brought it down on themselves and everyone else involved.

[Kato]

JzG's still at it, raging against Cade Metz. Hammering those nails into Wikipedia's coffin with every comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ion_scandles.3F

Cade Metz has decided, for whatever reason, to embark on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia. What he writes is unreliable. His source here is a disgruntled former employee (his sources are always disgruntled something). Some people would complain about paradise, so it's easy to find disgruntled somethings. Sure, you can believe every word Metz says if you want. And while you're about it I have a bridge for sale.

that piece is largely claptrap as was made perfectly clear on the unsecret wikien-l at the time.

[Cedric]

JzG's still at it, raging against Cade Metz. Hammering those nails into Wikipedia's coffin with every comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ion_scandles.3F

Cade Metz has decided, for whatever reason, to embark on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia. What he writes is unreliable. His source here is a disgruntled former employee (his sources are always disgruntled something). Some people would complain about paradise, so it's easy to find disgruntled somethings. Sure, you can believe every word Metz says if you want. And while you're about it I have a bridge for sale.

that piece is largely claptrap as was made perfectly clear on the unsecret wikien-l at the time.

Ah yes, the "disgruntled former employee" meme; that would seem to be the approved line from Central Office nowadays. But what of this? Does it always follow that disgruntled former employees/servants are serial liars and perjurers and ought not be believed under any circumstances? Does it naturally follow that all disgruntled former employees/servants are always wrong because the employer/master is always right, both legally and morally, and therefore the employer/master is beyond all question? Does it always follow that an employee/servant can never have any right to be disgruntled, for any reason whatsoever?

If you feel yourself ready to make all of these leaps of faith instead of looking at the facts and drawing the logical conclusions, then I have news for you: if not already initiated, you are a perfect candidate for The Cult of Jimbo™.

And may God have mercy on your poor benighted soul.

[Proabivouac]

Ah yes, the "disgruntled former employee" meme…

This is nearly the only purpose of the word "disgruntled" at this point:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=disgr...G=Google+Search

[Derktar]

How much longer until the Mandate of Heaven is pulled from Jimbo's grasp?

[dtobias]

Well, who's ever gruntled?