How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

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.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

I don't think Peter intended to kill anyone, just cause the demise of a dysfunctional website. Even at that his language is conditional and he will probably be back to work "building the encyclopedia" in no time flat.

[aeon]

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:

[gomi]

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.

[Nerd]

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.

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.

[carbuncle]

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?

[Nerd]

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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.

It's true that, given its location in the sentence, "the place" could be taken to refer to the hospital. Contextually, I have a hard time seeing how one could not realize that he meant Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

How Do You Stop The Pusher, Man?

Stop Buying, Dope!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

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]

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.

[wikiwhistle]

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.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Eh? He said heal their lives- that they be given the mental health care they need. Unless you mean wikipedia is some people's lives (which could be right lol)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[dtobias]

"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"

[Milton Roe]

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.

[A Horse With No Name]

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 feel the same way about Scotland. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[victim of censorship]

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]

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?

[Sarcasticidealist]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

[Kelly Martin]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.