Wikitruth.info: What's Going On? Options

[karmafist]

Is that site for real or not? I'm curious, there were some problems opening an account over there.

[Ashibaka]

I wouldn't be surprised if it started redirecting to goatse.cx one day, like so many other serious websites about serious Internet drama.

[Somey]

Is that site for real or not? I'm curious, there were some problems opening an account over there.

They've never allowed for public creation of accounts. There's obviously been a lot of speculation as to who's involved, and it looks like maybe the Faithful have figured out that the speculation is exactly what they thrive on. That may explain the recent lack of new activity... But it'll probably only take one major incident to fire it all back up again.

I'm not sure what to make of them at this point... At first I thought it was mostly just self-righteous puffery, but they seem to have purged some of their less-"helpful" contributors and settled down somewhat. They seem to be more selective now about what they call "censorship," which is probably good. Or it might be that they've just gotten bored with it.

What they really ought to be doing, in my opinion, is posting their versions of what Wikipedia's rules and policies should look like, if only to "run them up the flagpole and see who salutes." They're a wiki, after all. The fact that they don't do this suggests that they either don't care about policy issues and just want to bash everyone indiscriminately, or else they think the policies should be harsher and they don't want to alienate people by actually making that clear. Alternatively, it's possible they just don't have what it takes to write clear rules and policies - in that case, it's probably just as well that they don't try!

[karmafist]

Is that site for real or not? I'm curious, there were some problems opening an account over there.

They've never allowed for public creation of accounts. There's obviously been a lot of speculation as to who's involved, and it looks like maybe the Faithful have figured out that the speculation is exactly what they thrive on. That may explain the recent lack of new activity... But it'll probably only take one major incident to fire it all back up again.

I'm not sure what to make of them at this point... At first I thought it was mostly just self-righteous puffery, but they seem to have purged some of their less-"helpful" contributors and settled down somewhat. They seem to be more selective now about what they call "censorship," which is probably good. Or it might be that they've just gotten bored with it.

What they really ought to be doing, in my opinion, is posting their versions of what Wikipedia's rules and policies should look like, if only to "run them up the flagpole and see who salutes." They're a wiki, after all. The fact that they don't do this suggests that they either don't care about policy issues and just want to bash everyone indiscriminately, or else they think the policies should be harsher and they don't want to alienate people by actually making that clear. Alternatively, it's possible they just don't have what it takes to write clear rules and policies - in that case, it's probably just as well that they don't try!

That's unfortunate, it'd be nice if there was an actually serious anti-wikipedia wiki critical of Wikipedia's policies. I saw some interesting points on Encyclopedia Dramatica, but it was overwhelmed by borderline defammatory stuff, pornography and what seemed to be pent up hostility.

[Somey]

Okay, okay! I apologize for having suggested they might be getting bored with it:

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...next&oldid=3500

The new "Blockheads" article is one of the best they've done yet, actually! Maybe it's unfortunate that they decided to also write another new one making reference to the unpleasant incident from earlier this week, but the general subject in question is an issue nonetheless, and to their credit they managed to keep all names (including fake ones) completely out of it. Good for them.

So I guess I'm starting to like these guys more lately. And it wouldn't be fair to say that they aren't critical of Wikipedia's policies, if that's what you meant, K... They just have a different perspective than most of us here. And I certainly agree with them wholeheartedly about the whole Angela Beesley situation...

(Btw guys, it's spelled "prerogative," not "perogative"!)

[LamontStormstar]

That's unfortunate, it'd be nice if there was an actually serious anti-wikipedia wiki critical of Wikipedia's policies. I saw some interesting points on Encyclopedia Dramatica, but it was overwhelmed by borderline defammatory stuff, pornography and what seemed to be pent up hostility.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is 99% lies.


This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Fri 26th January 2007, 4:58am

[Somey]

Well now, let's not be quite so dismissive as that. I don't like ED either, but according to the latest statistics, the number of goatse images per page has been reduced by almost 15 percent just in the last three months! At the current rate, the number of talk pages containing photos of men in the "classic pose" will be less than half of the total by the end of Q2 2007!

I'd provide a link to the new statistics, but, well... the statistics page is illustrated, if you know what I mean. (I think there's a photo of User:Cyde there at the moment.)

It does seem a little weird sometimes... maybe the word is perverse - that such a large number of people (I think it's almost 15 or so) would still consider these images worth having around, after well over 18 months of near-constant overuse. I guess it just proves that some things just have way too much resonance with certain people, even if they're really, really disgusting things.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: Sun 15th October 2006, 6:44pm

[guy]

Can someone please refresh my recollection as to which, if any, of these sites was started by former attorney Fred Bauder, and which, if any, is hosted by Jimmy Wales' for-profit Wikia, Inc.?

Fred Bauder started Wikinfo.

[Somey]

which, if any, is hosted by Jimmy Wales' for-profit Wikia, Inc.?

None of them?

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: Sun 15th October 2006, 6:44pm

[Somey]

update: It's uncyclopedia i'm thinking about. They have articles on Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia, etc., and they are hosted at Wikia, though they have a non-wikia url.

Yes, it's quite teh funneh, as they say on teh intarwebz. But you must never confuse Uncyclopedia with ED, as this causes everyone on both sites to hate you indiscriminately.

And in reference to another current thread, by the way, Uncyclopedia is the only major Wiki site with an article about Lir:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Lir

That moronic, unfunny, stooooopid article is, ultimately, the reason I'm here - and as long as it exists, I will never, ever stop bashing the Wikipedians who put it there, and who keep it there to this day.

[Somey]

Also, as for the Wikia thing, the reactions of various Uncyclpedia contributors to that can be found here:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:Announc...26_Uncyclopedia

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Forum:Meanies

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Fo...Wikia_spotlight

On the last one, it should be noted that Wikia hasn't included Uncyclopedia on their list of popular Wikis in recent press releases.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: Sun 15th October 2006, 6:44pm