Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ How to utterly destroy Wikipedia

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

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.


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

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 3:44pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

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.


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.

Posted by: aeon

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, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24778&hl=aeon+et+al.

Posted by: gomi

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.

Posted by: Nerd

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.

Posted by: carbuncle

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?

Posted by: Nerd

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.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:52pm) *
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.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *

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.


How Do You Stop The Pusher, Man?

Stop Buying, Dope!

Ja Ja boing.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

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 boing.gif

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

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.

Posted by: wikiwhistle

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

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.


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)

Posted by: dtobias

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

Posted by: Milton Roe

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?

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.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *
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. laugh.gif

Posted by: victim of censorship

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.


Posted by: Somey

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?

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:44pm) *
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!

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 4:44pm) *
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.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:42pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:44pm) *
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!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I'm thinking this is more a reference to the way non-emergency hospitalization tends to do the patient more harm than good. Plus being formally diagnosed with a mental disorder will limit one's employment opportunities regardless whether it is accurate or whether the symptoms are anything to worry about.

But once you're checked into the Fourth Floor (because the symptoms are something to worry about, or because they can't make up their fucking minds) you'd better just hope there isn't a fire. hrmph.gif

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

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.

Q:How to utterly destroy Wikipedia
A:Leave/Put Jimbo in charge

Posted by: Peter Damian

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scholasticism&diff=279086390&oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

I had always thought the way to correct this problem is to work from inside and try to change people's perceptions from inside Wikipedia. I have always had a belief that this is the best way to change things.

I now think that this is like going into a crack house and persuading the inhabitants to leave. This is a mistake. They should be gently but firmly led out, put into a hospital and allowed to withdraw from their addiction, and the crack house utterly destroyed without trace. (I hope that makes my metaphor clear).

But again, how would one do this?

Some ideas:

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.
2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly write up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:11am) *

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scholasticism&diff=279086390&oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

<snipped out tl;dr material>

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:48am) *

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?


So what should I be doing?

[edit] I am in the unenviable position of being a hated figure on Wikipedia for my role in the unseating of one adminstrator and one arbitrator. And being hated here for my belief that it is still possible to work for change within Wikipedia.

I am being quite consistent. I am utterly opposed to the current governance system in Wikipedia, and the way that it guarantees the survival of a certain rentier class. It is that I want to destroy, and always have. And if you look at my editing pattern, it shows no evidence of any addiction, I think. For example, look at all my edits today

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=2009062416&target=Peter+Damian

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:13pm) *


I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.


Surely you don't actually believe this?

Posted by: Peter Damian

OK that was tongue in cheek. But let's be more scientific. We assume that the election of every new administrator has been opposed, and so the admin population is falling by the natural attrition rate (I believe we have some stats around this). Then work out how much each admin has to do in terms of fighting vandalism and estimate how much the work load would be increased by the falling admin population. At some point there would be a 'tipping effect' - a small number of admins realise that the fight is hopeless, and give up. This in turn increases the workload on the remaining admins, who give up in orderly fashion, and the dyke collapses.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Kevin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:49am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:13pm) *


I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.


Surely you don't actually believe this?

No, but they'd certainly notice the "WR-block" of opposes, and change the rules to stop "off-site" canvassing. We'd all be labeled "meatpuppets" (at least those of us who agreed with each other enough to make this block) and kicked out, in some way. They'd have to. A block of 50 oppose votes, even 25 opposed votes, would swing most of the recent RfAs. The real problem with WR is its own integrety and (allow me this bit of horntooting) our good taste. Also, the unwillingness here by many people to vote against what looks like a decent admin candidate, just to monkeywrench the works of WP in general.

Though it might be fun to try it ONCE, just to see the fireworks. evilgrin.gif evilgrin.gif

It was pretty good even when we saw Ottava Rima start to try it abortively: "All those mean-mean WR people came here to vote against meeeeee." And all those stick-in-the-mud WP people who wouldn't be caught dead on WR also, turns out.... happy.gif Wups.

Of course, it's not as though little Kabbals don't occur on WP from little backchannel cliques. How often have you seen SlimVirgin, Crum375, Nevard, and the ever power-amassing Jayjg (back when he was with us) vote against each other in an RfC where they did vote? Not too damn often. But if you blinded them all from each other's votes? Methinks that would be about as interesting an experiment as making the French wine judges taste wines with the labels hidden. biggrin.gif Hey--- they can't tell Napa Valley from Bordeaux. ohmy.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.


So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:25am) *

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


Watching Wikipedia from this close is rather like watching Orwell's Ministry of Truth - from the inside the actions of the bureaucrats are banal and petty, but from the outside the results are a complete loss of freedom by reason of cultural and historical memory loss.

Edit:

Wikipedia will never be destroyed. If Wikimedia was shut down tomorrow, there'd be a hundred avatars of the same content desperate to be the next Wikipedia.

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:18am) *

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.


So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)


I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:37am) *

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:37am) *

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.


At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:01pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:37am) *

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.


At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.


No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:18pm) *


So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.


I would be most surprised if Google were remotely interested in the perceived accuracy of Wikipedia, so long as it drives traffic throught their site.

So long as readers visit Wikipedia, it will exist. And so long as "consensus" is used to determine policy, no substantive change can or will take place. What is needed is some leadership for the masses, and seeing as we don't have sharp sticks to make people follow as is done in RL, the aspiring leader will need to use charisma and persuasion, both in short supply.


Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:13am) *
I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.
Nonsense. They'll just restructure the election process so that the objections don't count.

Wikipedia isn't Iran. It's not possible for there to be a general strike with hundreds of thousands of editors clogging the streets, refusing to edit, and there's no international community breathing down Wikipedia's neck watching every move with bated breath. Nobody cares if Wikipedia's elections are a farce.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:08pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:01pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:58pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:37am) *

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.


At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.


No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.


If it was that easy I would have done it by now. You might as well have said

1. Make business plan
2. ????
3. Profit!

..for all the use that is. Venture capital companies are rather leery about investing generally at the moment, particularly in seed rounds where there is a well-known competitor which is free (as in beer). In order to get VC interest I've got to create some winning formula to bring in revenue that will give investors an excellent return and a clear exit strategy (like an IPO). I think I have that idea, but I have no money to even begin to lay it out.

Maybe someone should ask Don Murphy if he'd like to help fund the seed round of an encyclopedia project that will kick Wikipedia's ass by actually behaving *shock* *horror* like a bona fide publishing company. Alternatively (and this is my better idea) a new technology which will allow Encyclopedia Britannica and mainstream media outlets to publish on the Net profitably and would probably be picked up by Google or Microsoft in a heartbeat because of the new potential revenue streams it would generate.

Somebody ask him or any lurking VCs (I wish) that are reading this.


Posted by: sbrown

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:17pm) *

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Dubious percentage.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:17pm) *

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.


Good - very good.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36pm) *

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:43pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36pm) *

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

You could start by paying off the editors listed for that idiot cabal you tried and failed to get going. Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:46pm) *

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.


Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:49pm) *

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!


This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

Posted by: carbuncle

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:46pm) *

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:56pm) *


QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:49pm) *

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!


This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:46pm) *

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:04pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:56pm) *


QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:49pm) *

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!


This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors


Is there any reason for this unremitting hostility? Are you one of those who regard me as a traitor to Wikipedia Review, or a traitor to Wikipedia?

Please say what you really think.

Are you FT2 by any chance?

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:11pm) *

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

Interesting take. You really think the formatting is a detriment to the usability? The main crux of it, the article space, is pretty plain: text, image on the right, image on the left, section headers, references (if you're lucky!), and that's it. It's pretty pedestrian, but it's functional and streamlined. It presents information without much fluff. What's your guff with it?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:46am) *
The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it.

I agree.

To my mind, the best practice at this phase of the game is to construct and publish an accurate and insightful analysis and diagnosis of the project and the participants, and to do so in as professional and credible manner as possible.

The dysfunctionality of the site's governance model is increasingly apparent, as more and more scholars and professionals publish their analyses and studies of WP's anachronistic mobocracy.

The site is dominated by a substantial number of power brokers who manifest some variety of personality disorder, (primarily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#Cluster_B_.28dramatic.2C_emotional_or_erratic_disorders.29). This would be the stigmatizing portion of the diagnostic analysis, were it to come from credible and reliable sources.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:11am) *

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.


The sites I find irritating to use are the commercial ones that pop up annoying ads at you every chance they get, even managing to do it in Firefox with popups disabled through various devious coding. Wikipedia is a breath of fresh air in comparison, with pages that aren't full of things flashing, moving, and popping up at you, and articles that you can read by scrolling down without having to keep clicking "next" to go to another slow-loading page with a bite-size chunk of text surrounded by lots of ads.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:56pm) *

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:46pm) *

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.


Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

I mean real political - like the good work Greg has been doing highlighting Wikipedian irresponsibility to the senators, and the little glitch they had in Britain when there was the minor Scorpion scandal which was badly mishandled even though the action of the net nannies was not as inappropriate as suggested by That Man in the Leather Trousers.

To make inroads on that, the main argument of Wikipedia that needs to be undermined is the "responsibility == censorship" where any suggestion of common sense controls, including self-control is poo-poo'd as old fashioned reactionary twaddle.

The meme that should be being worked up is that Wikipedia is a resource of the people, by the people, and it is an international disgrace that such a potentially useful resource is being squandered and undermined by a bunch of irresponsible oiks. If this was a banking system or the motor industry, Obama and Brown would have already intervened biggrin.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:26am) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:17pm) *

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.


Good - very good.



Get off the Wheel, Peter. Stopping caring about whether Wikipedia "succeeds" with or without your silly "contributions." It is not about you. Criticize Wikipedia for the harm it does to innocent persons outside itself. Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else. They only deserve the care you might have for anyone else whose addiction is exploited. Care about the pornography and lack of child protective measures on the site whether you are on the outs or not.

You sound like a junky desperately trying to get a free fix from his dealer by threatening to turn him in to the police.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:58am) *

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.


It would seem that Peter Damian and (perhaps) JohnA are on a track that I was on, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15824.

Maybe there is something to be considered in a coalescing movement to create "the next Wikipedia". The key differences might be:

I used to think I don't have the reputation capital or clout to launch such an initiative, and I probably still feel exactly the same way. But, maybe a group of "nobodies" like us could collectively recruit the necessary "somebodies" who might make this work. It would have to be a combination of venture capital and a knowledge-celebrity spokesperson on the notability level of Al Gore or at least Neil deGrasse Tyson.


*Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee).

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 24th June 2009, 4:16pm) *

Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee). [/size]


Agree with you Greg and you are the one person who knows how to run such a site (Sanger's model was an improvement but sadly Larry never acquired the gentle art of making people feel welcome). But will a fee-based model work? Why can't subtle, targeted advertising work just as well? Even the philosophy pages on Wikipedia get a readership of millions. As for Britney Spears ....

Posted by: Shalom

Reply to the initial request:

Pray. I sometimes insert in my prayers the words "destroy Wikipedia's corrupt power structure." I'm not kidding. At first it was a joke but now it's become a nervous habit. So far it hasn't produced results.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:23am) *
It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? wtf.gif

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

Posted by: anthony

For the most part I think we should just leave it alone and let it destroy itself. And I'm pretty much convinced that's going to happen. Not that it's going to blow up and go away in a blaze of glory. That *probably* won't be the exit. Its destruction will be more gradual, slowly it'll become more and more unreliable until Wikipedia is just as useless as the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Faster than Britannica though, because they'll probably hold on to "anyone can edit" until the bitter end.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:37pm) *

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

I think I'd agree with that. Although I take part in the reform discussions, I do so in the full knowledge that no reforms will result. I'm a fool to myself really.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:37pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:23am) *
It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? wtf.gif

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.


I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36pm) *

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.


As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:12pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:37pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:23am) *
It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? wtf.gif

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.


I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.



Gag. The analogy of occupied France is not apt. Wikipedia is a menace that harms it innocent neighbors and Wikipedians sign up to inflict this harm freely of their own volition. It has not been "occupied" by foreign forces or "stabbed in the back" by something disloyal within. Its participants are responsible for the harm they cause. I'm not a "freedom fighter" just another guy with a little microphone. I'm not concerned with the internal dramas or careers of the bringers of the Blitz. I want to make the world aware of the harm they do. This is London Calling.


Posted by: Cedric

In answer to the original question, I have long been of the opinion that Wikipedia is well into the process of destroying itself by slowly, but surely, damaging its reputation. However, I believe EricBarbour is right in thinking that this will take years to play out (it has already taken at least two).

I suppose if you wanted to take things into your own hands to hasten this process, you could try what I call the "Uriah Heep Solution". That is, register an account and start hanging out on the talk pages of WP's worst cabalistas. Shower them with loads of unctuous praise and play to all their worst behaviors and desires. Do little favors for them as well, like placing nasty block warning messages on the talk pages of editors they don't like or have conflicts with. Never miss an opportunity to sneer at experts, sing the praises of Jimbo and "free culture", and extol the wisdom of "banned means banned". In time, you might get nominated in a RFA. If you pass, then you can really do some damage.

Personally, I think that is all way too much work. I think that just sitting back and observing the natural process of decay is far less stressful and more instructive. However, I cannot eliminate the possibility that there are some undercover Uriah Heeps at work on WP already. We cannot be sure that there is no one within the current Cabal that is consciously attempting to bring WP down. fear.gif

Posted by: LessHorrid vanU

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:58am) *


...

I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

...


(Dreamily) Oh, Peter, and I thought you were against fighting vandalism...?

Posted by: emesee

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:37am) *
... English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" .... the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

Anyone remember Alta Vista? ..... I thought so.

Or to quote Frank Zappa: "Some say the world will end in fire or ice, but I think there are two other possibilities: paperwork and nostalgia."

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:46pm) *

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma.

That would be another advantage of my proposal. Whod want to admit involvement with a site officially declared to be unsuitable?


QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:33pm) *

Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

Thats very true. If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:00pm) *

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(emesee @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:33pm) *

consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

Greshams Law. The bad drives out the good.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Or, something might change with Google. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on Google juice.

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:33pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:00pm) *

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.


Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(emesee @ Wed 24th June 2009, 4:33pm) *

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.


We're getting there, amigo.

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:52am) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 4:44pm) *
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.


Ask Mr.http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Essjay if his life was helped by the concept of Wikipedia?

Make no mistake, Wikipedia is a not a positive force in the world or the internet. Ask some of the those hurt, abuse and/or have be victim of Wikipedia theft of IP property, and reputations.

It's delusional to think Wikipedia has an positive value and to read the stories on WR should be enough to put that to rest.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(Emperor @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:45pm) *

QUOTE(emesee @ Wed 24th June 2009, 4:33pm) *

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.


We're getting there, amigo.

Yes weve established you have one good article. smile.gif

But look at wikinfo. Thats making no headway and if it cant I doubt any wikiclone can. We need a completely fresh approach.

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 4:18am) *

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:42pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:44pm) *
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!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.



cancerous tumor works for me. The Term "Canker Sore" is from the Play "Man of all seasons" by Robert Bolt.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:31pm) *

If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.


For how many minutes?

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:00pm) *

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:43pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.


I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.


WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?

Hint. "A profit without honor …"

Ja Ja tongue.gif

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 11:52pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:43pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.


I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.


WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?


Wikia?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 25th June 2009, 1:10am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid benevolent well-meaning chap.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 25th June 2009, 12:18am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 25th June 2009, 1:10am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid.


Makes about as much sense as non-alcoholic beer. But hey, they manage to sell that, so who knows.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 25th June 2009, 9:43am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:00pm) *

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.


I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality. When you look at the types of mass media that are popular, tabloid news etc, it is unclear that the masses are interested in the distinction. At the moment I doubt also whether much of the general readership of Wikipedia understands it's flaws at all.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 25th June 2009, 1:00am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 25th June 2009, 9:43am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:00pm) *

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.


I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality.


Is the idea that the commercial entity is going to improve the quality?

I think that's a pipe dream. A pipe dream I once believed, but a pipe dream nonetheless. The work it'd take to fact check a Wikipedia article, to confirm that it wasn't plagiarized, to ensure that it was neutral, etc. would be about as much effort as just hiring someone to write it from scratch. And in the latter case you don't have to deal with the problems of copyleft.

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.


Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 25th June 2009, 2:17am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.


Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:17pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.


Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.


Bam! There it is! confused.gif

http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/Special:NewFiles

QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:21pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 25th June 2009, 2:17am) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Wed 24th June 2009, 7:02pm) *
Wikia?
Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.


Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?


rolleyes.gif laugh.gif

http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Featured_Wikia/Spankingart/Blurb

Oh and Wikia has a new spanking wiki up. No Boy Scouts, thankfully.

http://spankinghelp.wikia.com/wiki/Spanking_Wiki

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:02pm) *
But that's just it -- Damian hasn't noticed or done anything. If he wishes to espouse the anti-Wikipedia sentiment, so be it. BUT HE CAN'T EVEN LEAVE WIKIPEDIA. He's in a limbo land. That's weak.

What difference does it make if he "leaves"? I mean, sure, he should leave, just like everybody else, but I don't see why failing to do so (or do so decisively) should preclude him from espousing anti-Wikipedia sentiments. (Unless of course you're a hardcore WP'er and you just want to "get rid of" people who espouse such sentiments.)

Again, I agree with you that he (and most other WP folks) should "leave." But there's no single "correct" cookie-cutter approach to the WP problem for everyone, is there? It really depends on the person - I myself have never made a single edit on WP, for example, so if anyone could get away with insisting on total disengagement as the only path to integrity, it would be me. But I wouldn't say I'm known for promoting that as the solution for all people in all cases. (Though I'll admit, it often is!)

QUOTE
...what was the EEA? Reform? Don't be ridiculous. It was genuine participation in the community, or an attempt to do so.

It can't be both things? Stark binary thinking is a sign of you-know-what, Im afraid. And all this talk of "loyalties" makes me a little uncomfortable...

Personally, I would have to say that some sort of editorial board actually would be a requirement for a responsible, quality encyclopedia-like website of WP's size and internal complexity. I understand why they don't think they need one, and it's fairly obvious that most of them don't want one, but I don't blame him for suggesting something of that nature - pointless though it may be.

QUOTE
For what it's worth, I don't buy any of the stuff some of you say about fighting the good fight against Wikipedia. I've not seen any evidence of it.

How about fighting the bad fight, then? Or the not-morally-aligned fight?

And suggestions for how to "fight" more correctly or effectively are always welcome, within reason of course.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 25th June 2009, 4:27am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36pm) *

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.


As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.


That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 25th June 2009, 7:25am) *

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.


Please do not engage in personal attacks -- rats behave with far more sincerity and intelligence than the average Wikipedia administrator. tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 25th June 2009, 4:22am) *

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.


Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 25th June 2009, 4:06pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 25th June 2009, 4:22am) *

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.


Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.



Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 25th June 2009, 11:12am) *

Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?


Whatever you want. The "particular situation" could even center on the idiocy of our tolerance for Aeon's so-called "contributions" here at Wikipedia Review, and how his presence makes the level of discussion here so much more juvenile and acrimonious than it could otherwise be without him.

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

Mod note: Various posts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25044.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 25th June 2009, 1:25pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Thu 25th June 2009, 4:27am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36pm) *

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.


Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.


As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.


That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.


The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 26th June 2009, 8:51pm) *

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.


That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.


I really think he is serious you know. blink.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.


I really think he is serious you know. blink.gif


What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:51pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.


I really think he is serious you know. blink.gif


What are you both talking about?

I am not sure of your misunderstanding - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:54pm) *

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.


Well (1) obviously couldn't have been meant - how could Wikipedia, which was invented in the 21st century, have fucked up events which happened long before that, such as the Holocaust. Therefore (2) is the only reasonable sense. Wikipedia is seriously screwing up our record of history, and there is no doubt about that. Do you not agree? If you do, why are you reacting with such horror?

Even the Wikipedia article on history manages to get the definition right. "History is the study (teaching) of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time."

It is this which Wikipedia has fucked up entirely.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:59pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:54pm) *

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.


And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:46pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:59pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:54pm) *

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.


And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.


In the old days they tended to copy things in writing so that at least the information went in subliminally.

There were no encyclopedias before Wikipedia that have made such spectacular errors as Wikipedia.

But how would you know, 'Alex'. Where actually do you get your information from?

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:53pm) *


This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:53pm) *


This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.


Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

QUOTE
Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"


QUOTE
Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:02pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:56pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:53pm) *


This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.


Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

QUOTE
Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"


QUOTE
Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"


Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:10pm) *

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.


On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

Posted by: Alex

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:17pm) *

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.


'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:10pm) *

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.


On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

They're not trying to repress dissent. Stop trying to paint yourself as a victimised martyr when you're actually the one (attempting to be) on the attack. And we don't need running commentary on which nasty Wikipedian is now calling for your blocking. Surely you considered that minor setback in your battle strategy against all things Wikipedia...? *scoffs quietly to himself*

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:17pm) *

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.


'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?


I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:23pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:17pm) *

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.


'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

Nah. Wrong. It means to inflame for the sake of inflaming. Which, in spite of your "reasoned" and "rational" protests, is *exactly* what you're doing with this thread.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *
but interested in the views of others.


Image

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:27pm) *

They're not try to repress dissent.

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *
but interested in the views of others.


Image

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.


HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:35pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:27pm) *

They're not try to repress dissent.

!

Taking words out of context ftw.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:36pm) *

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.


And no one is stopping him from voting?

[edit] The third remark seems inconsistent, don't you think?

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:17pm) *

People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.


QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:29pm) *

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.


QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:36pm) *

It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him.



Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:38pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:36pm) *

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.


And no one is stopping him from voting?


Since RFA is not just a vote (you don't add comments to votes), this isn't possible.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:36am) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *
but interested in the views of others.


Image

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.


HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.


I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. smile.gif My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:41pm) *

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. smile.gif My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...


Ah... then I have to agree with you smile.gif There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:43pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:41pm) *

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. smile.gif My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...


Ah... then I have to agree with you smile.gif There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:45pm) *

Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?


No, your definition was inflaming 'for the sake of it'. Which I am not doing. As I said, my objections are in-principle and conscientious ones.

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:45pm) *

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Posted by: Somey

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceranthor_2&diff=prev&oldid=299108818 on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&oldid=299138224#Comments_at_Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:14pm) *

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceranthor_2&diff=prev&oldid=299108818 on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&oldid=299138224#Comments_at_Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.


To put this in context:

* I began the thread with the thesis that it is not the administration of Wikipedia that is dysfunctional, but the community, and perhaps the community should be destroyed or 'rehabilitated'.
* One of my suggestions for achieving this was consistently opposing every RfA. This would have the effect (if everyone was like-minded) of reducing the number of administrators until the system collapsed.
* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.
* The results you see here before you.
* My conclusion is that the community really is dysfunctional. OK, it took me some time to realise that. I have always had a great faith in human nature, perhaps misplaced.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:28am) *
* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:35pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:28am) *
* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.


Well I'm a bit of a doubting Thomas so I like to see for myself.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:13pm) *

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.


Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 28th June 2009, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:13pm) *

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.


Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 10:29am) *
We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.
Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?


QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:35am) *
WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.
Peter doesn't apparently remember that I was threatened with a block for casting a "neutral" vote on any candidate who was not a member of a WikiProject, even though neutral votes have no bearing on the outcome of the election anyway. The mentalities at play here are quite pathological, but also quite predictable.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:43am) *

Ah... then I have to agree with you smile.gif There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.


Yes there is: "Balloonman." evilgrin.gif

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 28th June 2009, 8:31pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:43am) *

Ah... then I have to agree with you smile.gif There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.


Yes there is: "Balloonman." evilgrin.gif

Balloonman is a wannabe RfA sage desperately searching for wisdom, trouble is he looks in all the wrong places.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:29am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:23pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:17pm) *

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.


'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?


I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.


Then why are you editing Wikipedia then?

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 10:29am) *
We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.
Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?


Spot on!

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(RMHED @ Sun 28th June 2009, 6:46pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 28th June 2009, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:13pm) *

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.


Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.


Or as Wikipedia puts it (in a sentence which could use 3 or 4 {{fact}} tags):

QUOTE

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".


Sometimes it's more fun to join in, though.

QUOTE

Experienced participants in online forums know {{fact}} that the most effective {{fact}} way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends {{fact}} to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen {{fact}} warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".


Nothing like trolling the [[troll]] article. C'mon, you know you wanna do it.

Posted by: The Joy

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:19pm) *

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif


Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Kato @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:13pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:45pm) *

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Okay. Trolling seems to be a blacklisted term. He's being a fool, then -- surely that, at least, is still "meaningful" on WR. He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:43pm) *
Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

People engage in analingus for pleasure, and I'm having trouble
imagining what Mr. Ottava has to do with "pleasure".....

For that matter, that whole RFA is turning into a scrotum-chewing exercise.
A nice excuse for certain admins to take swipes at Peter.
QUOTE
* ...yes we can. Can't we just get rid of this bloke sans drama? If he doesn't like it good for him. Go to Google and get them to stop indexing Wikipedia if you need to. Dear me, this really is not complex. The little man is, contrary to popular and idealist belief, in actual fact very often very wrong. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:35pm) *
WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

I think that's undoubtedly true.

Posted by: Ahypori

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:19pm) *

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif

I was surprised by that, actually.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:23am) *
It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat ...
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:37pm) *
You own a goat? wtf.gif

Well, just keep David Shankbone away from it ... that is all I say. Otherwise, indecent photographs of it will only end up on the Pee-dia.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:03pm) *

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?


That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

Posted by: aeon

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 29th June 2009, 5:24am) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:03pm) *

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?


That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

What a load of nonsense.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(aeon @ Mon 29th June 2009, 1:29am) *
What a load of nonsense.

You have to define what the word "work" means before you can call it "nonsense," don't you? If his goal is simply to object for the sake of it, so as to retain his integrity and all that sort of thing, then what's the problem?

If you have a better idea for making the RfA process grind to a halt, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Who knows, maybe we'd all even join in! smile.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 29th June 2009, 2:34am) *

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

It may be somewhat ironic, but IMO it would only be "incredible" if those same people were protesting against the right of established editors to prevent other established editors from being elected to the group of established editors.

I know, it's a silly thing to quibble over... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

You could always point them to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=1&bl (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

They could ask IP address 97.106.52.36 (T-C-L-K-R-D) why it was sooooo damned important
to tell the world that Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban......thus endangering his life......

That IP editor is a real prick, judging from the history. Charming person -- obsessed with
political hostages, FPS games, and The Godfather.

(just occurred to me......I can't think of a better way to ruin Wikipedia's golden "reputation" than
if it got someone killed. That occurrence is coming.)

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.


I really think he is serious you know. blink.gif


What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.


I think its because aeon just isn't very bright. And has never read 1984

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:19pm) *

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif


Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

Not just you. ermm.gif

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 28th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 10:29am) *
We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.
Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?


Er... I do?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:19pm) *

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif


I really cannot believe how ridiculously silly that RfA discussion has become. When brain-limited characters like EVula, J.delanoy, AllStarEcho and Giants27 flare their nostrils and flex their muscles in outrage, it is impossible not to break out in giggles. I did like Xeno throwing in a reference to Nietzsche -- though Pastor Theo referring to Pinky and the Brain might be closer to the mark in regard to the gist of the discussion. Giants27 gets an extra star for trying to dig up dirt on Peter, and Wehwalt seems to have taken the Wiki title for being a lawyer who knows how to write cogently and comically (sorry, Brad, you're all washed up!).

Nonetheless, this whole thing has been very entertaining. Kudo, Peter, for giving me a good horse laugh! laugh.gif

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:47pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 26th June 2009, 8:51pm) *

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.


That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.


The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:47am) *

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.


Any by "publish" you mean simply "make available to the public"?

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:22pm) *
Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.
Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 29th June 2009, 1:43pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:22pm) *
Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.
Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.


A stable version? Ah, there would still be plenty of horse shit to shovel. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 29th June 2009, 5:43pm) *

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

Well here's the scoop:
QUOTE(Jimbeaux)

I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible. I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good start. [...] I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested "before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


August 26–28 btw. Has anyone asked Brion yet what's the hold-up?

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:58am) *

You could always point them to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?_r=1&bl (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.


How, exactly, is that "extremely embarrassing" to Wikipedia? What it shows is that an information collection and dissemination medium that isn't run by a "good ol' boys' club" like the mainstream media (and thus not as easy to get to conform to "gentleman's agreements" to withhold information) is harder to keep censored; the "God King" Jimbo just barely managed to keep a lid on it, but that might eventually become impossible as he declines in community power. While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:19pm) *
While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

In a general sense, perhaps. However, I'd still like to ask you, as I asked Hipocrite in
that other thread: are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?
And are you willing to speak to the family when it does happen?

This clash comes about because of that whole demented "information wants to be free"
concept that Web 2.0 and "digerati" types are always pushing, as if it were a law of
physics or something.

Information doesn't want anything, PEOPLE want something.

The only reason websites are killing newspapers and magazines, and Wikipedia is killing
encyclopedias, is because PEOPLE WANT FREE INFORMATION. And if you have total
la-la freedom on your information site, the result is very often defamation, personal
attacks, misinformation and propaganda, etc.

(In fact, allowing free editing of an information source would seem to INVITE
misinformation and propaganda.) And if someone dies as a result of said "free"
information, who is responsible? A teenager in his Florida bedroom, editing
Wikipedia while watching net-porn he scored at no cost, with his free hand shoved
down his boxer shorts? Is HE willing to apologize to the family of the deceased?

Those are damn difficult questions. What gets me, is that Jimbo did something
responsible in the case of Rohde. But his "encyclopedia" is being assembled by
random people, who may or may not be "responsible".

I still think that Times article is an embarrassment--because it shows Jimbo, being
a hypocrite and ignoring the "info wants to be free" cant that he pushed, and that
so many of his Wiki-gnomes take very seriously.

Jimbo helped create that atmosphere, and now he's making exceptions to the exception-less "rule".
And of course, his oft-deranged editor pool is playing Super Mario with people's lives.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Wikipedia appears to have done the right thing here, but it's unlikely that they'll generalize from the experience. Jimbo did this because someone schmoozed him into it; it wasn't a case of them realizing ab initio that it was the right thing to do. Not everyone with a BLP can successfully schmooze Jimbo into doing the right thing, and in any case schmoozing the God-King doesn't scale.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:47pm) *

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?


That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:55pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:47pm) *

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?


That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.


Yes, and just how much should Wikipedia censor to prevent potential harm?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 29th June 2009, 2:58pm) *
Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?
The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.

Posted by: Apathetic

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 29th June 2009, 4:01pm) *

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 29th June 2009, 2:58pm) *
Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?
The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.


Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:02pm) *
Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?
Squarely on top of it. Or something. I dunno, my crystal ball is malfunctioning.

Of course it's not easy. And determining the correct course of action in any given situation is not helped by absolutists lobbing squibs from the peanut gallery.

Posted by: EricBarbour

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo? Is he going to be the proper
God-King that people constantly joke about, and pass down diktats about how
Wikipedia should run? He hasn't done much of that before, and when he has,
the result was often ugly chaos. (cough BLP cough.)

Do the Wiki users decide? Look at how they are http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25064 over user page indexing.
Look at certain of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Thekohser Greg Kohs in the back.
I would not vote for these people, even for dogcatcher.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 8:19pm) *

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?


The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 10:52pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 8:19pm) *

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?


The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.


And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 30th June 2009, 2:15am) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:47pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 26th June 2009, 8:51pm) *

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.


That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.


The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.


Here is a list of all articles on Wikisage:

1. Main Page ‎(2,314 views)
2. Myalgic encephalomyelitis ‎(347 views)
3. Dutch units of measurement ‎(233 views)
4. Byron Hyde ‎(155 views)
5. Post-viral fatigue syndrome ‎(151 views)
6. Basic income ‎(131 views)
7. ME/CVS Vereniging ‎(114 views)
8. Tram ‎(110 views)
9. Light Rail ‎(108 views)
10. Basic Income Earth Network ‎(107 views)
11. Chronic fatigue syndrome ‎(105 views)
12. Wish You Were Here ‎(90 views)
13. Siemens-Düwag U2 ‎(85 views)
14. Wikipedia ‎(80 views)
15. Fibromyalgia ‎(76 views)
16. Pink Floyd ‎(75 views)
17. Myalgic encephalomyelitis nomenclature ‎(75 views)
18. Karel Joseph van de Poele ‎(74 views)
19. Tramway systems in the Netherlands ‎(61 views)
20. Vereniging Basisinkomen ‎(59 views)
21. Invest in ME ‎(56 views)
22. David Bell ‎(55 views)
23. Systems of measurement ‎(52 views)
24. Group 1850 ‎(51 views)
25. ME Association ‎(50 views)
26. History of Trams ‎(49 views)
27. Morgen ‎(47 views)
28. Tonne ‎(46 views)
29. List of Tramway systems ‎(46 views)
30. Daniel Peterson ‎(34 views)
31. Da Costa's syndrome ‎(27 views)

I guess there must be two or three editors at most and one of them is a hypochondriac.

And none of them should be writing encyclopedia articles.


Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:08am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 10:52pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 8:19pm) *

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?


The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.


And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.


So long as the policy didn't cause the libel, they shouldn't be. Of course, in the case of the WMF, the lack of policy arguably does cause the libel, but I thought we were talking about what should be, not what is.

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:08am) *

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.


No, he doesn't. The popular notions of "the Section 230 rules" don't correspond to what the law actually says.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:56pm) *

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.


That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

At least it explains why there are so many articles in the English site about the same malaise.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:55am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:47pm) *

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?


That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.


That's true. The Internet is a gold mine of misinformation, lies and the ramblings of mentally disturbed people. I don't advocate shutting down Wikipedia as it would be like the magician's apprentice trying to stop the broom by cutting it into pieces with an axe - we know how that ended.

The way to beat Wikipedia is to produce a better encyclopedia that is free to use and quote, but not free to edit. And wikis are not the way to produce authoritative encyclopedias.

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval? I know that EB uses their own in-house software (which must be a study in itself). Is there something similar out there?

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 30th June 2009, 12:54pm) *

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval?


What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 30th June 2009, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:56pm) *

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.


That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

I did not write or even edit that article, thanks. There used to be a fairly decent page at nl:Wikipedia.

QUOTE
By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

Ah, now we get to see where your disdain is coming from. You think that because you didn't have ME, others can't have it either, and that because you aren't an expert, others can't be. And there was a fair amount of literature on ME in de mid 1980's, btw. You must have missed it.

But you're just attempting to sidetrack because you were caught mispresenting the facts with regard to Wikisage.

That's the common way of making discussion on Wikipedia, but here we don't fall for it.

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 30th June 2009, 4:32pm) *

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.


"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that you are attempting to destroy Wikipedia."

They caught up fast. smile.gif

How can one expect them to make good articles if they are checking WR all day long? tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:32am) *

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.


And now we'll see the familiar process of a man "getting even" with those who blocked him, by generating an army of rotating-IP sockpuppets, whose discovery will only harden the Wikipediot resolve -- "He's an indefinitely blocked troll who is compounding his block by socking. Let us have a community ban vote, now!" Then he'll be community banned. Then maybe an appeal to ArbCom will be in order. We all know the drill.

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:51am) *

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

Indeed. If you think about it all again after gaining some distance, it becomes apparent that the thought patterns and actions of the reigning regime are rather predictable. That makes the task considerably easier.

Posted by: Basil

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 30th June 2009, 3:32pm) *

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

It was to be expected. I'm surprised it took so long. I don't understand why you insist on taking them on, head on? As SunZi wrote,
QUOTE
Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defence if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.

Posted by: dtobias

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 2:22pm) *
Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all...

Perhaps it could be interpreted as a "cry for help"? blink.gif

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:32am) *

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.


Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 3:42pm) *
Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

I guess he should have screamed for help instead...

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

As we know from a recent movie, the mere announcement that Wikipedia will be destroyed, without ever taking a deliberate action towards it, could well be enough to make it happen.

All that is missing is a date. Shall we pick July 4, 2010 as the day of days?

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 30th June 2009, 4:46pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 3:42pm) *
Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

I guess he should have screamed for help instead...


Does the Supreme Court approve of yelling "Help!" in a crowded Wikipedia?

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:22pm) *

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

Thats nonsense. As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(sbrown @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:31pm) *
As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:42pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:32am) *

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...

It will cause a great deal more "sound and fury" if any other administrator is unwise enough to reverse it.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:33pm) *


My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:37pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

Do you want the short version or the slightly shorter version?

I'll give you the short version anyway. Jimmy Wales, and Larry of course, deserve credit for what their fledgling idea has become. You will no doubt interpret that simple comment negatively, but I mean it positively nevertheless. It is however true that his supreme powers are becoming a serious impediment to the project's further development and credibility.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:43pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:37pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:33pm) *

My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.

If you apply that principle to Jimmy Wales then he really doesn't fare too well.

Do you want the short version or the slightly shorter version?

I'll give you the short version anyway. Jimmy Wales, and Larry of course, deserve credit for what their fledgling idea has become. You will no doubt interpret that simple comment negatively, but I mean it positively nevertheless. It is however true that his supreme powers are becoming a serious impediment to the project's further development and credibility.

Jimmy isn't my best buddy at the moment, he finds it very difficult to answer a direct question, he prefers to hide behind false arguments built on artifice.


Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:47pm) *
Jimmy isn't my best buddy at the moment, he finds it very difficult to answer a direct question, he prefers to hide behind false arguments built on artifice.

No argument from me there.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 30th June 2009, 6:20am) *
What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:51pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 30th June 2009, 6:20am) *
What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......

Yep, the issues that ought to be addressed are rather plain to see for anyone who takes off their blinkers.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Man, I have to hand it to Peter. His Wiki-must-be-destroyed bit has brought out
all kinds of insane twitching Wiki-scum. And they're duking it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_review_of_Law.27s_block_of_Peter_Damian.

He isn't doing any of the destruction. He doesn't have to.
They're doing it for him.

As usual, these little shits are OPPOSED TO FREE SPEECH. Say something offwiki
they don't like, and they disrupt their OWN WIKI to "punish" you. Barking mad indeed.

Do these people have any idea how pathetic they look?

I wonder how much hard-drive space (that could be holding useful articles)
is being taken up by this endless posturing and blubbering. I wonder how many
articles, that these assholes could be improving, are going unimproved? While they
squabble over "teaching that bastard a lesson"?

QUOTE
And it is criminal that there is no page on Johann Andreas Streicher by the way. What are you all doing? Get to work. Peter Damian (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted by: Apathetic

I think Peter's action are having an effect!

QUOTE

This wiki has a problem

Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

Posted by: RMHED

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

QUOTE
Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh


When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:40am) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 30th June 2009, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:56pm) *

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.


That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

I did not write or even edit that article, thanks. There used to be a fairly decent page at nl:Wikipedia.

QUOTE
By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

Ah, now we get to see where your disdain is coming from. You think that because you didn't have ME, others can't have it either, and that because you aren't an expert, others can't be. And there was a fair amount of literature on ME in de mid 1980's, btw. You must have missed it.

But you're just attempting to sidetrack because you were caught mispresenting the facts with regard to Wikisage.

That's the common way of making discussion on Wikipedia, but here we don't fall for it.


I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.



Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:39am) *
I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not ME.

QUOTE
You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

Nobody ever claimed it did, on both points.

QUOTE
I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.

You have chosen WR to do that. Obviously, on a wiki (other than WP) we wouldn't let you.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 30th June 2009, 11:36pm) *

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

QUOTE
Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh


When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

This is of course the Timmeh currently presenting himself at RfA. If Peter Damien really wanted to destroy wikipedia he could do no better than support this candidate.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:12pm) *

Man, I have to hand it to Peter. His Wiki-must-be-destroyed bit has brought out
all kinds of insane twitching Wiki-scum. And they're duking it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_review_of_Law.27s_block_of_Peter_Damian.

QUOTE
This wiki has a problem

No shit.

QUOTE
Do these people have any idea how pathetic they look?

Nope. Not clue one among the whole lot. I love it. biggrin.gif

Hasten The Day!™

Posted by: Rhindle

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 3:54pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 30th June 2009, 11:36pm) *

This has to go down as one of the most idiotic comments ever:

QUOTE
Support block. It makes sense that people threatening to assassinate the president of the United States are arrested, especially if they have set out a specific plan to do so. This is essentially a parallel situation.

Timmeh


When you're dealing with idiots of this magnitude what chance has the reasonable man?

This is of course the Timmeh currently presenting himself at RfA. If Peter Damien really wanted to destroy wikipedia he could do no better than support this candidate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThtQTIK3UFw

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:22pm) *

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

Thats nonsense. As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.


Greg is kind of more cagey, indirect, and ambiguous about his specific intentions, hinting at some sort of unstated agenda but not directly saying he intends on trying to destroy or damage Wikipedia, let alone giving a detailed list of methods by which he plans on accomplishing it. This was still enough to get him lots of loud opposition onwiki, with people squawking about "How dare they unban him?", but the ArbCom did it anyway. Saying explicitly that one's intent is to "utterly destroy" Wikipedia (even if it's totally ludicrous that the stated techniques would have any chance of doing so) is harder to defend.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th June 2009, 4:42pm) *


Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) has unblocked you. Alas, his unblock has caused more sound and fury...


...signifying nothing. hmmm.gif

Posted by: RMHED

.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:22pm) *

Greg is kind of more cagey, indirect, and ambiguous about his specific intentions, hinting at some sort of unstated agenda but not directly saying he intends on trying to destroy or damage Wikipedia, let alone giving a detailed list of methods by which he plans on accomplishing it. This was still enough to get him lots of loud opposition onwiki, with people squawking about "How dare they unban him?", but the ArbCom did it anyway.


That's not bad, Dan. Good summary!

I will say this -- I have an ambition to "utterly remove" anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees and/or staff who does not exhibit above-average honesty and demonstrate above-average skill sets and experience in knowledge management systems.

I am admittedly bumbling my way toward that end, and I don't harbor any illusion that I will succeed, but there it is for you. If this little personal "project" of mine is a blockable or bannable offense, then depress that button on me, ArbCom!

Greg

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:39pm) *
I will say this -- I have an ambition to "utterly remove" anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees and/or staff who does not exhibit above-average honesty and demonstrate above-average skill sets and experience in knowledge management systems.

A worthy and not unreasonable expectation.
You know....sort of like other institutions.......

The Wikimedia Foundation sets a new standard for incompetent hiring practices.
Instead of getting experienced and knowledgeable people, who
might possibly know something about databases and encyclopedias....

..........they get Brad Patrick and Essjay and SlimVirgin and David Gerard.

Think what someone like Mel Brooks would do with The Story Of Wikipedia.
Imagine a Broadway actor, playing Jimmy Wales and singing a song entitled
"If Only I Could Get Laid".

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:31pm) *
As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.


In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 1st July 2009, 2:41am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:31pm) *
As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.


In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

I am quite consistent in my views, I recommend you try it sometime. You might also like to ponder on your rather revealing choice of the word "threatening".

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:56pm) *

Think what someone like Mel Brooks would do with The Story Of Wikipedia.
Imagine a Broadway actor, playing Jimmy Wales and singing a song entitled
"If Only I Could Get Laid".


In all seriousness, that was a wail of one of Shankbone's blog postings -- considering he wasn't playing for laughs, it was a bit...well, you know. wtf.gif

Posted by: MZMcBride

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:11pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Wed 1st July 2009, 2:41am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 30th June 2009, 5:36pm) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Tue 30th June 2009, 10:31pm) *
As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.

People say all sorts of things. My preference though is to judge them by what they do, not what they say. A radical idea to some, I know.


In all seriousness, do you only apply this rule to Wikipedia or do you apply this to the real world as well? I can think of quite a few scenarios in which threatening to do something (but not actually acting) would get you arrested.

I am quite consistent in my views, I recommend you try it sometime. You might also like to ponder on your rather revealing choice of the word "threatening".


You didn't answer the question.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 30th June 2009, 11:11pm) *
You didn't answer the question.

Personally, I'd say he did answer the question, but he didn't want to come right out and accuse you of binary thinking. By the same token, if you weren't thinking in that fashion, you probably should have assumed that he would have made exceptions for people threatening acts of violence in the Real World, or other overtly harmful crimes.

All of this hinges on what society (as opposed to the WP community) would consider a "crime" with respect to anti-Wikipedia activity. I don't believe society has really decided that question, though I would imagine the justice system would not look kindly on someone firebombing or blowing up one of Wikimedia's server farms, for example.

However, I'd prefer to think that he was writing that somewhat metaphorically. Obviously he did use the terms "blown up" and "utterly destroy" though, which was perhaps unfortunate, because apparently a number of alarmists among the WP'ers took this to mean that he planned some sort of physically destructive act. Instead, what he really proposed, IMO, was in effect to bring on the inevitable Attrition Phase™ a few years sooner than it will actually occur.

As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

This whole episode strikes me as a bit silly, which sort of makes me wish I had thought of it first. (Though I suppose I did, in a way - it's just that at the time I didn't have Mr. Damian's standing as a "productive editor," so nobody really took it seriously.) The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.

Ironically, I myself am usually considered one of the more "reasonable" people here. I can assure you that this is just an act - I'd probably destroy the entire Web 2.0 edifice if I could, if I thought I could get away with it and do it without anyone being physically injured. This despite the fact that my livelihood practically depends on the internet.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:42am) *

However, I'd prefer to think that he was writing that somewhat metaphorically. Obviously he did use the terms "blown up" and "utterly destroy" though, which was perhaps unfortunate, because apparently a number of alarmists among the WP'ers took this to mean that he planned some sort of physically destructive act. Instead, what he really proposed, IMO, was in effect to bring on the inevitable Attrition Phase™ a few years sooner than it will actually occur.


It's extremely silly. It's part of English humour to use hyperbole for humorous effect, and it obviously wasn't meant to be taken seriously. There is a maxim that says you should never use irony or any other form of non-literal expression on the internet, in case people read you literally. Perhaps I should have taken that to heart.

All quite funny though.

"Americans think that life is serious but not hopeless. The English think that life is hopeless but not serious"

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:48am) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:39am) *
I definitely did have ME. I still have a problem with my sleep centre which I have to manage otherwise my energy levels drop precipitously.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not ME.


Sorry to burst yours, but you're not a medical doctor either. Nor have you seen my medical history.

QUOTE
QUOTE
You miss my point. People who have medical conditions do not make them authoritative sources of information about the condition- especially if they believe that the medical establishment is disdaining their belief system.

Nobody ever claimed it did, on both points.


Except wikisage. Oh I can read Dutch as well.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I'm not misrepresenting facts at all. I'm not writing a wiki justifying my own beliefs about medical conditions I have.

You have chosen WR to do that. Obviously, on a wiki (other than WP) we wouldn't let you.


I haven't made them out to be authoritative about a medical syndrome. You have. I've only made them authoritative about me.

Wikisage is all about you. The definitive guide to what obsesses Guido den Broeder.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:08pm) *
Oh I can read Dutch as well.

I doubt it. I don't think that you can read, period.

And by saying that I am being kind.

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:29pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:08pm) *
Oh I can read Dutch as well.

I doubt it. I don't think that you can read, period.

And by saying that I am being kind.


Natuurlijk!

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 7:42am) *
As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

Make that 'institutionalized and without any network connection' ... although I can imagine them all sitting meditating together, like the Manson Family, taking over the minds of distance internet surfers in order to make edits on their behalf.

A bit like that old political maxim, "no one that wants to be a politician should be allowed to be a politician ", would this not cure the project in one ...

No one that wants to edit the Wikipedia, should be allowed to?
Image
Charles Manson takes the last word on the Wikipedia

Posted by: JohnA

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 7:42am) *
As to his suggestion that most Wikipedians should be institutionalized, well, that proposal has been going around for years...

Make that 'institutionalized and without any network connection' ... although I can imagine them all sitting meditating together, like the Manson Family, taking over the minds of distance internet surfers in order to make edits on their behalf.

A bit like that old political maxim, "no one that wants to be a politician should be allowed to be a politician ", would this not cure the project in one ...


That's the problem I have with Mediawiki is that there's no test of intelligence or scholarly ability to be able to use the software as an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has the worst of all models for scholarship. But where is the best?

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 3:42am) *

All of this hinges on what society (as opposed to the WP community) would consider a "crime" with respect to anti-Wikipedia activity.


Though, when the subject under discussion is how the Wikipedia community is, or should be, reacting to him, then the "inside" view from the perspective of the community might be seen as more relevant than what a little old lady in Pasadena might think.

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 3:42am) *

The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.


And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

Currently, with Mediawiki. It has enough features and flexibility, one just needs to use them.

But we have discussed this already, JohnA.

Posted by: Gandoman

One thing that has been shown first with Kurt, then with DougsTech and now with Peter Damian is that anyone who systematically opposes all RFAs for a reason perceived as "bad" will quickly end up blocked/banned. The punishment for doing this is much harsher than for edit-warring, POV pushing etc. I think the RFA community is very afraid of people doing this as it taps into the very weakness of the RFA model: that it is officially "not a vote", and therefore anyone can support or oppose for any reason they want, while in reality it is clearly a vote. Thus, while bureaucrats might disregard the "bad" oppose votes, they will nonetheless count towards the support percentage and possibly bring the RFA below the magical 70% mark.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 1st July 2009, 12:15pm) *

And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.


See 'Naturalistic fallacy' in any good reference work. (Preferably not Wikipedia).

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 1st July 2009, 11:15am) *

QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 3:42am) *

The WP'ers who are indulging themselves in all this cult-apocalyptic hoo-hah over "plans to destroy Wikipedia" have, I'm afraid, also been brainwashed somewhat by all the talk on WP of how "some people on WR seem perfectly reasonable, but others just want to destroy Wikipedia altogether," as though wanting to destroy Wikipedia is somehow unreasonable. In fact, this is simply indicative of a desire to return to the state of general-reference publishing that existed a mere ten years ago.


And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't. It's a principle of memetics just like genetics that the memes that survive will be the ones that preserve and propagate themselves. You shouldn't be surprised when it happens. I oppose attempts at self-preservation on Wikipedia's part that undermine its own principles (e.g., BADSITES), but don't have any problem with its general tendency to want to make sure it continues existing, and reacts negatively to somebody who states an open desire to destroy it, though such things are usually expressed ineptly enough to easily be laughed off.


BADSITES is not the only destabilizing, self-defeating policy at Wikipedia.

We can make this discussion much more clear if we step away from cult-think and draw a clean separation between theory and the implementation. The idea and the practice. Or, my favorite analogy, the "country" and "government".

I fully support the "country" of Wikipedia. May the database of content live forever.

However, like Peter Damian and others, I feel it is absolutely necessary to round up the current "government" of Wikipedia, take it out back and shoot it, then burn it's buildings to the ground, and salt it's earth. Out with the 'old' and demonstrably destructive kooks in charge today: install better management!

It is no irony at all that the long-term survival of Wikipedia probably depends on doing this.

Posted by: MBisanz

Peter, I have an analogy and I was wondering if you might agree that it is a fair analogy to your situation at RFA (and in general at WP).

In the United State, the Lion's Club is a famous volunteer organization best known for collecting and recycling used eye glasses for the visually impaired. Now one could argue that the money they put to setting up collection facilities, recycling the glasses, etc, would be better spent on treatments to improve the visually impaired's eyes (such as Lasik, cornea transplants, etc). Also, there is a slight risk that some of the frames collected will have structural defects from use and could in an accident harm the person.

If someone who held these concerns showed up at a Lion's Club meeting announcing they thought the Club should stop collecting eyeglasses and would work towards that goal, people probably would be skeptical of them. If at every meeting they led off with a motion to shut down the eye-glass collection program people probably would get annoyed with them. And when they started showing up at collection drives with a poster saying "Don't give to the Lion's club, do something worthwhile with your money", it would take an incredible amount of tolerance for the club not to show the person the door.

Now an alternate approach might to be showing up at meetings and suggesting the Club do a better job reviewing donations to make sure they are safe. If it didn't work the first week, coming back the second week with details of how people are harmed by defective glasses. Or motioning that a fund raising drive for cornea transplants be held. Maybe down the road it could become the dominant part of the Club's activities and people would see the person who first suggested it as a leader.

And yes, I'm fully aware the Lion's Clubs are run by adults whose names are known publicly and who do bear liability for their actions. I'm talking more here about concepts than the nitty gritty details.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 1st July 2009, 1:18pm) *

Peter, I have an analogy and I was wondering if you might agree that it is a fair analogy to your situation at RFA (and in general at WP).
[...]



There is much in what you say, MB. However, the analogy is not entirely accurate. What if the proposal meant that 90% of the Lion's club members couldn't help with this work, and would have to take up some other hobby instead? Then, I put it to you, the resistance to the ideas would rise above logic and reasonable argument and would reflect the vested interest of 90% of its members.

That is the real situation, I believe. Most of the activity on Wikipedia is vandals changing articles, and then vandal-fighters changing them back. It is an entirely pointless and futile activity and should end. But this would leave 90% of admins without a job (for I believe that most of them are incapable of serious editorial work). Not very popular.

Now I could give plenty of evidence that all the positive contributions to Wikipedia come from individuals who have an interest in a limited subject area. Because Wikipedia is accessible to millions of people globally, this means that pretty much all subject areas (with the exception of specialist academic areas like mine) get covered. It would therefore be perfectly possible to prevent IP's from editing, require registered accounts, and encourage these people to edit more.
But this would put the vandal fighting faction out of business.

Thus, your analogy I think is a little bit flawed, although thanks for suggesting it. There is much good in what you do in Wikipedia, MB.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:51pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 30th June 2009, 6:20am) *
What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

Lots. It would be great for a more conventional collaborative effort, such as a
corporate software or DB project, where you have control over the userbase.

But for writing an "encyclopedia", one that is wide-open to any random
net-loon for editing/disediting, it's crap.


I don't understand. You want it to be wide-open to any random net-loon? Because, if not, it's trivial to set it up so it's not. I mean, Citizendium did so, didn't they?

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:51pm) *

I'd like to see a better, more sophisticated article editor--one that generates
article formatting automatically wizard-style, with titles, sidebars, and references
autoplaced.


Well, yeah, that'd be nice, but that's going beyond the request of "JohnA" for something which "produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval"

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:51pm) *

Plus more sophisticated control of editor rights, if they're gonna leave
it wide-open. Think of all the insane vandalism and gaming they could reduce
if MediaWiki allowed certain restrictions on what new users and IP addresses
can do--perhaps they could be limited to working only on certain specially
tagged articles that need more work, or restricted in reversions or making
many small drive-by edits.


Well, I was responding to a particular question posed by JohnA. I'm going to quote it just in case someone missed it:

QUOTE(JohnA @ Tue 30th June 2009, 12:54pm) *

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval?


I don't think he is "gonna leave it wide-open". Mediawiki is very flexible in this regard. And it's fairly easy to modify the source to make some additional changes if you want a particular editorial control.

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 30th June 2009, 9:51pm) *

That would be far better than letting a gang of nutcase admins ban whole IP
address ranges, or be forced to use crude scripts like Huggle to trash/untrash
articles wholesale.......


No argument with you there. Wikipedia is a horrible application of Mediawiki. But the particular question I was responding to wasn't referring to Wikipedia.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

To the extent that PD's project to "Destroy Wikipedia" was meant to generate discussion on Wikipedia centering on PD it has been a smashing success. To the extent that it was meant to destroy Wikipedia, not so much.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Yes, but surely the problem is that what is really being defended is not the Wikipedia, per se, but the addictive reward mechanism and whatever personal mental hooks keep the adherents involved in it as it is, e.g.

the sense of self-importance, the opportunity to act out, nationalistic agendas. Like someone wrote as I was posting, a raison d'etre for the vandal fighters who don't and can't actually write.

I mean ... where am I going to invest my neuroses if they take it all away from me!?!

Its obviously a wind up ... so what's the big deal. If folks are taking it serious, they really have to be nuts. Even the one's not yet past puberty.

What I would asking myself is why should I be bothered, or concerned enough, to want to fix or change it without being asked, paid for and or empowered to do so?

I can see a genuine 'public interest' in doing so, many public interests, but how great really are they in comparison to the other "evils" of our world?

Based on past records and other examples, is "joining them" (for no wages) and reasoned discussion likely to bear fruit? I doubt it. Its ruled and protected by a rabble.

So probably what others here are proposing (and, in a sense, the unrepresented persistent and genuine vandalism enacting) ... "trash it until it becomes so stigmatized that it has to be seen to change to survive" (the old "squeaky wheels get oiled" equation) is likely to be the quickest way forward. That genuine vandalism is partly a sign of culture's disrespect for it.

The investment of your suggest diplomatic approach would probably be better made to the big funders and financiers of the project. The trusts' trustees not the Mediwiki's. Your "eye glass" equation being based upon the pornography, the racism, the admin abuse, the waste of resources goodwill and so on.

There is no quicker way to grab anyone's attention that to take away or threaten their meal tickets.

Elsewhere on this forum, there was a review of financial accounts. The Wikipedia's accounting should include a review of all the waste time and energy the unpaid laborers. I suspect that is VAST and in that you see the real inefficiency of the current model.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

But more than that, its maintenacity of its more egregious vandals gives it plausible awshucksability for suppressing all other forms of information or feedback that happen to make the lowest common redumbinator of the Cabble and the Rabble uncomfortable.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 7:10am) *

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

But more than that, its maintenacity of its more egregious vandals gives it plausible awshucksability for suppressing criticism or information that makes the lowest common redumbinator of the Cabble and the Rabble uncomfortable.

Jon Awbrey


My profundity detector is all a-tingle.

Posted by: anthony

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 1st July 2009, 1:08pm) *

To the extent that PD's project to "Destroy Wikipedia" was meant to generate discussion on Wikipedia centering on PD it has been a smashing success. To the extent that it was meant to destroy Wikipedia, not so much.


The latter is the goal, the former is the means.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Gandoman @ Wed 1st July 2009, 7:34am) *

One thing that has been shown first with Kurt, then with DougsTech and now with Peter Damian is that anyone who systematically opposes all RFAs for a reason perceived as "bad" will quickly end up blocked/banned. The punishment for doing this is much harsher than for edit-warring, POV pushing etc. I think the RFA community is very afraid of people doing this as it taps into the very weakness of the RFA model: that it is officially "not a vote", and therefore anyone can support or oppose for any reason they want, while in reality it is clearly a vote. Thus, while bureaucrats might disregard the "bad" oppose votes, they will nonetheless count towards the support percentage and possibly bring the RFA below the magical 70% mark.


No, the one thing this shows is that the people in the RfA sector (which, quite frankly, represents a sliver of the total Wikipedia "community") have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever.

Poor Kurt and Doug were positively hilarious -- I actually looked forward to whenever they popped out of their garbage cans to do their Oscar the Grouch shtick. I don't know if they were trying to be intentionally funny or if they were just aiming for irony -- or if they really were a pair of cranky kooks. So what? Sometimes a benign kook is needed to tell us that we're taking ourselves too seriously.

And who was furious with them? Hundreds and hundreds of people? No, just a tiny handful of shitheads with nothing better to do with their time and no way to vent their frustrations.

With Peter -- this teapot tempest really shows that the characters at Wikipedia need to turn off their computers and get a real life. This whole situation is a riot -- if Peter was an American equine, he'd win the Eclipse Award as Horse of the Year.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 1:10pm) *
In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

I was thinking just along this line.

The vandals and the Hamster Hammer Game "admins" are probably operating out of dorm rooms right next door to each other ... they are on the same level. What you are saying is that it is the vandals that give the PoliceState its endorsement not "the community", empowering a certain type.

Hell, just like in reality it will reach such a level of "problem" that, rather than make the necessary changes, they will demand and create a paid for police force to deal with it.

I mean, why should volunteers have to give up their lives and police it for no money? Surely protecting "the community's" wealth is worth paying for?

Posted by: LaraLove

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 1st July 2009, 2:54pm) *

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.

I think you need to hand out lots of drama tiaras, one to each of the clots who thought that Law's crazy block was a good idea.

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 1st July 2009, 2:10pm) *

In short — as I have remarked on numerous e-casions — the WikiPoliceState is Symbiotic with its Vandals.

I don't think there can be much doubt about that.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 1st July 2009, 6:15am) *
And you seem to somehow find it odd, or perverse, that a community should act in a way to attempt to preserve its own existence, when, in a Darwinian universe, that's the common behavior of entities of all sorts given that natural selection prunes out those that don't....

On the contrary - it isn't odd or perverse at all, in fact it's to be expected. It's tragic, to be sure, given that the people expending all this effort in WP's defense aren't really getting what they'd like to believe they're getting, much less getting paid for it. But like you say, it's hardly surprising that people would behave this way when the thing they're addicted to is threatened, even metaphorically. If I gave folks the impression that I myself was surprised by it, I guess I'll just have to be more explicit about that in future, then.

Anyway, it's like the song says:

When you're unable to make the connection you know how vital it is
When something slips through your fingers you know how precious it is
And then you reach the point where you know
It's only your second skin...




Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 1st July 2009, 9:54am) *

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.


But didn't you contribute to said drama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=299551830

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 1st July 2009, 9:54am) *

I need to buy you a drama tiara.


I'd rather have one of those than a barnstar.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 1st July 2009, 4:02pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Wed 1st July 2009, 9:54am) *

I just read the AN/I thread on Peter's block in full. Jesus Christ. This is what is so stupid about Wikipedia.

Congratulations on birthing that pile of fail, Peter. I need to buy you a drama tiara.


But didn't you contribute to said drama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=299551830

Yes. I said the drama should end, and thus contributed to the drama. Vicious cycle.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

Posted by: The Joy

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:43pm) *

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?


Oh, the irony! rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Oppose I can accept a distant block, and I can accept early examples of poor judgement. But I cannot accept an inability to properly creare a simple aricle only seven months ago, and I cannot see adequate evidence that this editor properly understands what is and is not vandalism. And a reply to almost every oppose !vote is neither a positive nor an expected contribution from the applicant. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Arbiteroftruth&diff=prev&oldid=299756042


Talk about brutal! dry.gif confused.gif

No wonder there are fewer people running for RFA!

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(The Joy @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:24am) *

No wonder there are fewer people running for RFA!

I see no shortage of lambs lining up for the slaughter.

Posted by: Juliancolton

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:43pm) *

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?


I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Juliancolton @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:36am) *

I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

Never mind, I've got another half, so between us we'll outgun horsey.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 1st July 2009, 8:43pm) *

Peter, I am glad to see you supporting the Arbiteroftruth RfA : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA#Arbiteroftruth

Peter, you get a horsey kiss for standing up for that guy. I cannot believe how utterly stupid the Opposes are. But, then again, when look at the admins who don't want him in their company: Tan, Juliancolton, Cirt, Dank (what an appropriate name!), Jclemens, Sandstein, Stifle...is there a brain cell among any of them? And admin wannabe Wisdom89 is the sour cherry on that rancid cake -- when do you think Wisdom89 is going to go for RfA #5?

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

Actually, allow me... to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag

Simply responding to concerns, which may be misinformed or out of context, is not badgering. It is a discussion, and whatever dimwits started the trend that candidates cannot participate in the discussion should be beaten with a cluestick. This has been the trend for quite a while now, though. I was labeled as "thin-skinned" (haahahahaha laugh.gif ) because I responded to opposers in my RFA (November 2007) to make clarifications. It's just stupid.

And this guy actually got opposes based on lack of experience... five years and 10k edits isn't enough in 2009. I would have thought we'd get a few more years before breaking five-digit edit requirements.

As for your last question, horsey, I'd say some time before RFA #6.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 1st July 2009, 10:53pm) *

QUOTE(Juliancolton @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:36am) *

I've only a half brain cell, sorry.

Never mind, I've got another half, so between us we'll outgun horsey.


Hey, no one ever said horses were smart. If we were, we'd be the ones in the saddle! wink.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:19am) *

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 1st July 2009, 11:40pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:19am) *

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

tru.dat

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Another problem will soon arise, that in order to pass an admin RfC, any individual doing so will have to be utter characterless and conformal ... as well as having steer away from any of the regular conflicts that require brave and courageous moderation.

The result will not be the genius the project requires but a safe, bland and even fearful mediocrity.

Its a problem now existing in politics where in order to get any candidate through election they must pass the full scrutiny of the gutter press and any likely backstabbing intrigue from more informed sources. It does not count how brilliant one is. If they have "something" on you, you are dead in the water.

Of course, that is not to say the gentleman and ladies of the gutter presses are not intelligent, they very often are. Just that their audience and techniques are difference.

And I know which side I stand on.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 1:43am) *

Peter, you get a horsey kiss [...]


Er, rather not but thanks for the offer. I'd rather have that drama tiara from Lara.

Posted by: Peter Damian

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingpin13&oldid=299779296#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

QUOTE

Peter Damian
Ah, I was expecting someone would contact me soon about this. I provided, in my edit, a very brief summary of why I struck his vote, but I will elaborate.

Part of the job we do, as crats, is to analyze the rationales behind opposes and neutrals to see where consensus lies. We do give different weight to different rationales, and in a practical sense, the only difference between giving a vote no weight and physically striking a vote is striking the vote. This is possible because RFA is a discussion, where the real power of someone's oppose lies not in their physical vote but in the reasoning behind it.

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

When a person submits themselves to RFA, they deserve to be seen in the light of their contributions. They deserve to receive constructive criticism. They deserve to see what they have done right and what they need to work on. So when someone opposes with a reason that fails to give to the candidates the respect and the aforementioned rights that they deserve, how can we let that stand? We are an encyclopedia based off mutual respect and civility for each other. To what degree our mutual respect and civility as a community still stands is debatable, but this is the hope we look to build towards.

That said, I don't have a vendetta against Peter Damian. I wish him well, and I hope he continues to build content. If he even put so much as a reasonable rationale to show why Mikaey might not be a good admin, I would not have stricken the vote. But his wording, the internal message of his oppose, and the fact that he is basically getting away with it, I find to be astounding. As a bureaucrat, I feel it is a duty of mine to make sure that RFA is a place where the candidate can learn about themselves through the constructive criticism of others and that both sides may be civil and respectful when doing this. I had no choice but to be bold, and to do my duty, albeit in a more openly symbolic fashion that we are accustomed to doing. bibliomaniac15 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:40am) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:19am) *

The oppose that always kills me is the "badgering" oppose for candidates that reply to comments. That's so far beyond fucktarded. Someone should clue these people in to what "badgering" means.

You're both right and wrong, or should that be wrong and right? I'm confused.

Anyway, the rules at RfA are that you mustn't disagree with your opposers, no matter how fucktarded their oppose may be. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention, and is therefore a useless twat who should "come back in three months, when I'll support". The whole charade is fucktarded.

One of the things I tell people who I nominate is that it will take a mighty hot personal attack to get me to comment once the RFA is opened, mainly for this exact reason.

It is interesting that in this case while the name is not a great choice, it doesn't seem that much more terrible than [[User:Appraiser]], [[User:Hit bull, win steak]], [[User:Law]], or [[User:Ice Cold Beer]], all of whom are current admins; but I suppose I am biased on such things since I was neutraled at both my enwiki and commons RFAs for having an annoying signature.

Posted by: JohnA

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.

It doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not going away anywhere soon.

If and only if a better, more accessible encyclopedia comes along, will Wikipedia stagnate. The only way to "destroy" Wikipedia is to starve it of attention apart from the crazies that will always inhabit it.

The problem is that the new encyclopedia had better sort out the question of how to finance the hosting, development and bandwidth without which no competitor, no matter how worthy, will be able to last for long enough to challenge.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 11:52am) *

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.


My analogy was much better. Can we have a contest of analogies of Peter's relationship to Wikipedia? Maybe an Awards Center subform is needed evilgrin.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 7:41am) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 11:52am) *

I can't help feeling that Peter Damien and Wikipedia is rather like Karl Marx and capitalism. Where Marx expected capitalism to collapse of it had within it the seeds of its own destruction, Peter appears to think that if he's a part of it, Wikipedia will collapse under its own contradictions.


My analogy was much better. Can we have a contest of analogies of Peter's relationship to Wikipedia? Maybe an Awards Center subform is needed evilgrin.gif


Hmmm...how about Peter is like George W. Bush at the start of the Iraq war -- destroying a country in order to rebuild it? Or is that a bit too much? wacko.gif

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:28am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 1:43am) *

Peter, you get a horsey kiss [...]


Er, rather not but thanks for the offer. I'd rather have that drama tiara from Lara.

Image

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:47am) *

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingpin13&oldid=299779296#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

QUOTE

<snip>

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

<snip>


Emphasis is mine. It's unfortunate that a bureaucrat doesn't know that to negate an oppose, one needs three supports.

Posted by: Nerd

I thought it was well-known RFA is a fucked-up twisted MMORPG? It is nothing but a game of getting to certain levels, avoiding enemies, making friends, getting points with DYKs, FAs etc, and through the RFA, behaving impeccably. It also involves weeks of preparation - anyone who had done their research before stepping into the ring would know only a fool argues with an opposer, regardless of the merits (or lack of them) of their comment.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 2:38pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 3:47am) *

But now look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingpin13&oldid=299779296#Peter_Damian

Someone has decided to strike my vote in another of these stupid RfA's. I am going to fight this one.

QUOTE

<snip>

I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.

<snip>


Emphasis is mine. It's unfortunate that a bureaucrat doesn't know that to negate an oppose, one needs three supports.

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:41pm) *

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?


What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 5:10pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:41pm) *

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?


What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Seems to me that most candidates are "unremarkable", it's almost a job requirement. Indeed, if you're "remarkable" you've only really got two chances at RfA: slim and none.

Posted by: Nerd

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 6:07pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 5:10pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:41pm) *

Just who do these bloody people think they are? This bureaucrat seems quite content to see others "disrespected" every five minutes on wikipedia, but not one of his friends, oh no. And certainly not in the holy place that so many seem to want RfA to become.

Why don't they cut to the chase, and just make voting oppose a blockable offence?


What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Seems to me that most candidates are "unremarkable", it's almost a job requirement. Indeed, if you're "remarkable" you've only really got two chances at RfA: slim and none.


Unless you're remarkably popular.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 4:10pm) *
What puzzles me is the strength of the 'supports' for this apparently unremarkable candidate. Never heard of him/her. What does he do?

Its a way of sucking up in case they come back and bite your bum after they have 'admin powers' ... especially when you know you are going to need it. That rabid Korean nationalist editor, Caspian blue, has it down to a fine art.

Etiquette has it that, after passing, one has to go back and airkiss everyone that vote for you, hence a social debt incurred .... Manus Manum Lavat - Seneca.

Far better than oppose every RfA, Peter and the Damianite Popular Front should actually vocally support all and every RfA, telling the world how much they love the candidate, thereby building up a 5th Column within.

Personally I could not do it, as I don't like smelling of dick, but I'd say it works well on the Pee-dia. Then again, sincerity is not really required, is it? Just copy and paste old ones and make sure your name is near the top of the list each time.

I think I always made the mistake of not realizing how much of the right kind of sucking up was necessary. I had the naive idea that actually reading and working from academic papers, and spending time formating citations, was the right thing to do.

Posted by: emesee

What did the big wiki ever do to you?

Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

QUOTE(emesee @ Thu 2nd July 2009, 7:54pm) *

What did the big wiki ever do to you?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25152&st=0&#entry181630, mainly.

Posted by: Peter Damian

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose


Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! angry.gif

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 4th July 2009, 1:35pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose


Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! angry.gif

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.


Don't understand.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:30pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 4th July 2009, 1:35pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose


Of course it is fucked up -- tell us something we don't already know! angry.gif

You ought to cut back on your RfA activities for a while. That shithole needs wise old owls and you're acting like an annoying horsefly. You're also making the objects of your opposition look good.


Don't understand.

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:46pm) *

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".


But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing_concerns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:54pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:46pm) *

Translation: If you oppose someone for what looks like a really stupid reason, anyone else looking in thinks "if that's the worst anyone can say, the guy can't be that bad".


But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing_concerns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.

Can't really see the logic in your "writing style isn't perfect" oppose, personally. (Ottava's, which is based on an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation and distortion, is a different kettle of fish if accurate.) Pretty much anyone writing on any subject produces a poorly-written first draft to start with – this is why publishers have copyeditors and proofreaders.

That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole ("arguably" because there is a plus side to doing it this way, in making the flaws visible for multiple people to correct), but opposing an individual on the basis of a flaw in the system makes less sense than Doug's "too many admins" or Kurt's "prima facie", which at least made clear why they thought the individual candidate would be a problem.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 4th July 2009, 3:09pm) *

Can't really see the logic in your "writing style isn't perfect" oppose, personally. (Ottava's, which is based on an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation and distortion, is a different kettle of fish if accurate.) Pretty much anyone writing on any subject produces a poorly-written first draft to start with – this is why publishers have copyeditors and proofreaders.

That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole ("arguably" because there is a plus side to doing it this way, in making the flaws visible for multiple people to correct), but opposing an individual on the basis of a flaw in the system makes less sense than Doug's "too many admins" or Kurt's "prima facie", which at least made clear why they thought the individual candidate would be a problem.


I wouldn't criticise for 'writing isn't perfect', but rather 'far from perfect'. This is very bad writing indeed, and it has all the hallmarks of writing that won't improve. Note I added a few more concerns on the talk page. There is a failure to grasp the logic of the English language (mixing abstract adjectives with concrete nouns, imperfect characterisation, misuse of tense, misunderstanding of flow, and so on).

Moreover this was claimed as a FA, I think (let me check).

"U.S. Route 50 in Nevada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."

And he claims so in his replies to questions.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:54pm) *
Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

That really is one big problem ... too many of the (hyper)active components, the unpaid tools, can't write and can't recognize good writing when it replaces the schizoid chatter.

They don't have English as a first language. They are nowhere near academic or professional. They could not even write gutter press. They like it as shitty as they can make it on their topics. That is the best they can do. And if you dare try and change it, they go ballistic and start using all their pent up Wiki-guiles against you. It only takes two or three and all progress is screwed. And two of them do not even need to edit but just reverts or scweam for mummy to come and do something to the bad boys.

Years ago, I started editing by trying to copyedit topics that really did read like total and utter shite ... nothing contention. I had no partisan involvement on either side. Immediately, I had the harpies on me because I dared remove 3 of the 6 adjectives they had strung together, or the 5th repetition of the same allegation.

One of the most basic rules of good writing is not to say the same thing over and over again. Once really is enough and can have more impact, as does good copy.

"A topic on an atrocity does not have to be atrocious to make a point."
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:09pm) *
That Wikipedia puts the first draft on display rather than wait until it's complete is arguably a flaw in the Wiki model as a whole

And, addressing that is one of the things that would fix it. Put all the garbage in the backroom behind a closed door where the search engines cant get to it, and only let the gift, skilled or professional deal with the front end.

I disagree slightly on the "there is a plus side to doing it this way" because really other major problem is all culties ... nationalists ... egotists ... and sex pervs that are attracted precisely because it gives them a well lit stage to act out there dramas. Left face it, encyclopedias should be boring. Accurate, well written, details but boring. There should not be any mistakes worthy of less than a Prof, Emeritus writing a polite letter to the editor.

God knows, in the old days, all we had to manage with were the anatomical line drawings of anuses and vaginas ... and to use our imagination to fill in the rest. The young people of today are fapping spoilt for choice now.

Posted by: LaraLove

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 4th July 2009, 4:41pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.


No. As the man says above, a lot of disputes involve correction of poor style and sourcing. An admin who can't recognise the difference is not going to be very useful.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:35pm) *

QUOTE(LaraLove @ Sat 4th July 2009, 4:41pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose

sofixit, or stfu.

It's a wiki. If you're worried about his content contributions, you should be supporting his adminship request, considering many people stop doing content work once they get the buttons to do the maintenance.


No. As the man says above, a lot of disputes involve correction of poor style and sourcing. An admin who can't recognise the difference is not going to be very useful.


I think you are confusing two concepts here Peter.

Based on your comments, and others, I gather that a main point of your oppose is that there are many admins who do not write any content and when they run into a content creator, are heavyhanded without taking into account their content creations when blocking.

You are saying this admin will not be "very useful". My question is: will he be harmful to your goals? A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Sorry folks, I have to go with Peter on this gentleman.

Admittedly, WP needs more article authors to cover places like southwestern Utah. I've been there--it's some of the most beautiful country on earth, but it's also the back of nowhere. Even in the summer it doesn't get a lot of tourist traffic. (I'm assuming that "Davemeistermoab" actually lives in or near Moab. It's one of the most bizarre Western towns I've ever seen, btw, and its colorful history is difficult for people not living there to research properly.) If Dave wants to help Wikipedia soooo much, he should be writing content, not getting an admin bit and doing god-knows-what every day. And yeah, his writing is merely passable and not what I'd call "encyclopedia quality".

"Why does Moab, an isolated small town at the bottom of a Utah canyon, need a WP admin?" would be another good question for the RFA.

(PS, this is for anyone who thinks American Interstate highways are boring. Drive on I-70 across the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Rafael_Swell. I guarantee that will change your mind. Very little traffic too. If you have time, use some of the lesser highways when crossing southern Utah, it's worth the effort to see some of that country.)

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 8:27pm) *

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.


If an FA of that standard is difficult to achieve, that is a sorry state of affairs.

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 8:27pm) *

Based on your comments, and others, I gather that a main point of your oppose is that there are many admins who do not write any content and when they run into a content creator, are heavyhanded without taking into account their content creations when blocking.


No, not my point. They should take into account only the dispute. But if they cannot understand the basis of the dispute ...

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:27pm) *
A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve.
Obtaining an FA demonstrates a keen grasp of wikipolitics, but says almost nothing as to the editor's competency as an encyclopedia article author.

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 10:49pm) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 8:27pm) *

A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve. So IMO, to your main concern of non-content admins running amok, he is harmless. He may not be useful in waging your battle to improve RFA/destroy WP/get blocked every week, but he will probably be harmless to content creators since he has already been there in the past.


If an FA of that standard is difficult to achieve, that is a sorry state of affairs.


An FA of any standard is difficult to achieve for several reason:
  1. It must be comprehensive - Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources and defining the scope of an article to include enough of the topic without being rambling trivia is a skill.
  2. Adhering to the [[WP:MOS]] - There are 50 pages of style guidelines regulating everything from dashes to sections to interwiki links - Being able to create a long article that complies with all of these things requires a decent knowledge of how Wikipedia works.
  3. Proper writing style - Even if you can mash together wikicode, passing FA means the article is "brilliant prose". This is not easy to achieve since there is a broad gap between simply accurate writing and engaging writing.

To show the leap an FA must take, I'll use an article I just wrote as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Village,_New_York
  1. Comprehensiveness - It covers everything I could find on the internet and I even used some closed news databases, but to actually research it to FA standards, I probably would need access to the Preservation Committee hearing minutes, NYU's archives, and probably a couple more architectural books. Weighing the time required to do that and the time required to simply get a half-decent article, I decided to do the latter.
  2. MOS - I understand most of the MOS, but I'm sure I did not comply with [[WP:LEAD]] or the complex rules on sentences per section.
  3. Style - It is readable and accurate, but I wouldn't call it engaging by a long shot, it would probably take an entire re-write by a new author to make it read less like a technical specification.

That is why I am impressed when someone can make an FA. While the topics may not be something I am interested in, I do appreciate the amount of time it took for them to gather the sources, write the article, make it comply with WP's style, and then take it through FAC. And I am speaking generally here, I've only glanced at this candidate and will be reviewing him further before deciding on my !vote.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 8:54am) *

But I am opposing for very good reasons. The one who writes about roads really can't write proper English. It's an embarrassment to a good reference work.

Where I am struggling is that most of the people on that RfA think he is a pretty good writer. I really am struggling with that one.

I see also that Ottava, who often talks sense, has weighed in with some heavy criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing_concerns_and_errors

These concerns do not 'look like' really stupid reasons.


Petey honey, maybe in your mind you think you're making good arguments. But you forget that the majority of the RfA denizens see you as the heir to Kurt and DougsTech, not as the wise man on the mountaintop. You've already been at the center of a stirred shitpot with your "Oh, let's destroy Wikipedia!" crap. Do you really think people are going to take anything you say seriously?

Anything that's coming out of your mouth now is going to look like utter rot. Whether you are opposing Mr. Utah or John the Baptist or that unfunny Bloom kid or whatever cartoon character comes mop shopping, the constant "I oppose because..." is going to raise a groan of "Oh, shit, not him again!" from everyone except your very, very small circle of WR friends.

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! laugh.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:06am) *

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! laugh.gif

That's not a bad idea, but why do you think that Iridescent wouldn't be better in the Barbara Windsor role?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 10:47pm) *
Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources ...

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

The ripples of cognitive dissonance as the POV warriors are woken up to a new reality will probably cost you another of your sockpuppet accounts. It drives them wild. Why *should* they have to suffer the discomfort of leaving their Pee-Cee?

Of course, this goes hand on hand with the most important element of any "successful" editing career ... which is being wise enough to avoid any topics of contention and other psychoses magnets.

On a serious note, perhaps some expenditure the Foundation could incur would be institutional subscriptions to commercial digital libraries such as JSTOR, Ingenta and others. I have not thought this through, nor how access could be shared, but perhaps to a group of genuinely "established editors". It could be a carrot to offer to engage and reward genuine editors.

The ideal model would be where the serf classes are restricted solely to fact finding and reporting on talk pages (rather than talking and having dramas) using citation templates they have to fill in, and that editorial overseers be left to compose actual topic pages in a fairly homogenous style.

Which is actually a bit like encyclopedias actually work. Except the serfs get paid ...

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 4th July 2009, 11:35pm) *

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.


Back when some dipshit decided that the Wikipedia article on Exclusive Disjunction should be renamed to Exclusive Or, the proponents of the change did a Google search on the two alternatives as a part of their argument for most common name.

Think about it …

Or search WR for the old discussion …

As always, the Lowest Common Redumbinator of Popular Misconceit won out.

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: MBisanz

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 5th July 2009, 4:35am) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 10:47pm) *
Many topics are difficult to research due to non-web sources ...

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

The ripples of cognitive dissonance as the POV warriors are woken up to a new reality will probably cost you another of your sockpuppet accounts. It drives them wild. Why *should* they have to suffer the discomfort of leaving their Pee-Cee?

Of course, this goes hand on hand with the most important element of any "successful" editing career ... which is being wise enough to avoid any topics of contention and other psychoses magnets.

On a serious note, perhaps some expenditure the Foundation could incur would be institutional subscriptions to commercial digital libraries such as JSTOR, Ingenta and others. I have not thought this through, nor how access could be shared, but perhaps to a group of genuinely "established editors". It could be a carrot to offer to engage and reward genuine editors.

The ideal model would be where the serf classes are restricted solely to fact finding and reporting on talk pages (rather than talking and having dramas) using citation templates they have to fill in, and that editorial overseers be left to compose actual topic pages in a fairly homogenous style.

Which is actually a bit like encyclopedias actually work. Except the serfs get paid ...


When I wrote my senior thesis in college on the topic of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007, I found that a good amount of the research I needed for the paper involved transcripts from congressional hearings from the 1890s and 1910s which are only in a handful of major libraries in each state. Also, I found that another good portion of my paper dealt with material that only existed in the 5th circuit courthouse in Louisiana. So I went to the New York Public Library one day and dug through piles of old congressional hearings that were so old I could not photocopy them. Luckily I had surmised this and brought along my digital camera and was able to photograph the documents. For the 5th circuit materials I contacted the law librarian who graciously scanned the documents for me. For an aspect of the 10th circuit history in the midwest I ended up doing a phone interview with a lawyer in the region.

I am an average writer and despite spending a year working on the paper, expected to get the middle grade of "honors" from the thesis committee. After my defense to the department I was quite surprised to be granted high honors, with the comment from my adviser that the committee was most impressed with my use of non-digital sources since most senior theses these days are based almost entirely on material in digitized databases.

So I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder. When I later wrote another senior thesis on AT&T, I again returned to the paper books and AT&T archival documents I had collected over the years. I now have a nice crate in my garage of AT&T archival materials that is probably more complete than most college libraries.

But, if I was a professor reviewing a thesis, I would not expect to see non-digitized sources since I know such things are rarely referenced by contemporary students and that few if any of my colleagues would hold it against a student who used JStor or ProQuest based papers.

The point of this is that Wikipedia is similar. Some people are old-fashioned and use true archival materials from JStor, NYT pre-1980, etc, heck most of my articles are based primarily on old NYT's materials. But, I recognize that people can create an average article from web-only sources. And while the leap from average to brilliant may never occur, an average article on a random topic is still better to me than no article at all.

As to your second point of the nationalist disputes, I imagine it doesn't matter what type of sources are used, it would still be disputed. Many of these disputes pre-date the web and I don't think people could say "The Macedonia question is unequivocally resolved by this paper source", but rather "There are a range of viewpoints on paper sources about the Macedonia question".

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 5th July 2009, 4:47am) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 4th July 2009, 11:35pm) *

Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.


Back when some dipshit decided that the Wikipedia article on Exclusive Disjunction should be renamed to Exclusive Or, the proponents of the change did a Google search on the two alternatives as a part of their argument for most common name.

Think about it …

Or search WR for the old discussion …

As always, the Lowest Common Redumbinator of Popular Misconceit won out.

Jon hrmph.gif


Not seeing an article at either of those links...

Anyway, I would have challenged such a move by citing the existence of the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_(heraldry) as an unrelated polluter of Google results.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:08am) *

Not seeing an article at either of those links …

Anyway, I would have challenged such a move by citing the existence of the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_(heraldry) as an unrelated polluter of Google results.


Apparently no one has gotten around to making the redirects from the capitalized variants — like I'm gonna burn a pair of socks to do it for them … I don't think so …

BTDT — and you would have lost that argument to the usual horde of Iamnotanexpertbots …

Jon hrmph.gif

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

Points taken and its not just limited to nationalist debates either ... but such work or papers deliver facts. And, as with academia, the purpose is not entirely about the subject at hand but about broadening general awareness and improving methodology.

The problem with contentious issues is that Google reflects the exaggerated contentions publishes on the internet. As Jon shows, the Wikipedia then reflects Google ... which seemingly sticks the Wikipedia at the top by default. My suspicious would be that fuels the bloggers to repeat views recursively, and I would suggest increasing narrow manner. Hence a few 'copied onto the internet' published sources become to be the dominant, if not only, ones and "received opinion". New, non-Googlized information received as a threat to the status quo.

If the refereeing admins level of English is as poor as the contestants ... you are screwed royally. Its your hours versus their squealing and backstabbing abilities. Why would anyone bother?

There is not a search algorithm for quality control or relevance.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 4th July 2009, 11:35pm) *
Has any one else been hammered precisely for using bona fide sources that Google Raiders cant find? You should try it. Go into any Wiki war and start quoting actually books you have to read, academic papers only accessible by paying or institutional networks, or newspapers that are only held in national archives.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24433&view=findpost&p=175785 And you can read Arbcom member Cas Liber's response http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24433&view=findpost&p=176103.

Won't go through that again. Fuck them.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Malleus @ Sat 4th July 2009, 6:26pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:06am) *

Ottava -- personally, I think he and Malleus should quit Wikipedia and remake some "Carry On" films. They could be the Sid James and Kenneth Williams of the 21st century, with Iridescent in Hattie Jacques role. Oooooooooooh, matron! laugh.gif

That's not a bad idea, but why do you think that Iridescent wouldn't be better in the Barbara Windsor role?


That role goes to Flying Toaster. evilgrin.gif

Posted by: Law

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 4th July 2009, 3:54am) *

More proof if needed that the process is fucked up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Oppose


It is fucked up. If you really want to enact change, you do it by drilling from the inside. I have most admiration for MF, OR, Giano, and several others who have such strong influence because they work within and work their way out.

Find a system that is flawed, become an integral part, and work to your aim from inside, not from outside. Despite what most might think, I am a huge proponent for those that break out from the inner circle and flourish.

Pissing and moaning is one thing, but like Jefferson, who despised all that was Christianity, fought for such secularism that even though he was in the minority, as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, he gained such a respect that his actions were admired, followed, and still studied as of this day.

If you want to break something, you have to be a cog.


Posted by: Peter Damian

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner

Posted by: Law

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 5th July 2009, 4:47am) *

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner


so i removed the prod. reference it.

QUOTE(Law @ Sun 5th July 2009, 4:51am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 5th July 2009, 4:47am) *

No if you want to break something, smash it to pieces. Look what the animals have done now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotheus_Boehner


so i removed the prod. reference it.


or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Law @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:59pm) *

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help


Thank you for putting the references there, but that was something I was half way through doing anyway. If I had removed that prod I would have been blocked or banned.

Thank you also for emailing me with the idea that in some way you are like me or used to be like me. In RL you have to be careful about remarks like this as people can often be offended by it.

Having looked at your 10,000 edits I can't see how in any way you are like me. Sorry if this seems rude. You blocked me last week, is that correct?

Yes correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APeter+Damian

Also having looked at your previous user pages it is quite clear we have nothing to do with each other, given your interest in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Halloween

Also you have been identified as an 'Awesome Wikipedian' which in my book always means something very bad.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 4th July 2009, 5:31pm) *

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 4th July 2009, 2:27pm) *
A quick glance shows he has some major content creations, including an FA, which is difficult to achieve.
Obtaining an FA demonstrates a keen grasp of wikipolitics, but says almost nothing as to the editor's competency as an encyclopedia article author.

Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Davemeistermoab. The roads sub-cabal ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mgillfr. As a roadster, he will be expected to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Rschen7754, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.

Posted by: Juliancolton

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 5th July 2009, 10:05am) *

QUOTE(Law @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:59pm) *

or i guess i will. done. good article. email me for anything else. law (dot) callahan (at) gmail.com

i will help


Thank you for putting the references there, but that was something I was half way through doing anyway. If I had removed that prod I would have been blocked or banned.

Thank you also for emailing me with the idea that in some way you are like me or used to be like me. In RL you have to be careful about remarks like this as people can often be offended by it.

Having looked at your 10,000 edits I can't see how in any way you are like me. Sorry if this seems rude. You blocked me last week, is that correct?

Yes correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3APeter+Damian

Also having looked at your previous user pages it is quite clear we have nothing to do with each other, given your interest in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Halloween

Also you have been identified as an 'Awesome Wikipedian' which in my book always means something very bad.


Procedurally speaking, anybody can removed PRODs—even the article's creator.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:53pm) *
Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Davemeistermoab. The roads sub-cabal ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mgillfr. As a roadster, he will be expected to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Rschen7754, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.
While I wasn't specifically appraised of any of this, none of it surprises me. Wikipedia is teeming with cliques, cabals, interest groups, and power centers, and they are all constantly clashing one against another as each fights to present its favored content in the manner which most pleases its members.

What perpetually amuses me is the way that often very complex power relationships arise epiphenomenally out of this jumble, obviously without any overarching plan, but nonetheless with enough apparent structure for the conspiracists to allege a Vast Conspiracy which clearly doesn't exist.

Almost nobody at Wikipedia is dedicated to Wikipedia; virtually everyone there is dedicated to some other goal, and is only using Wikipedia as a means to accomplish it. Until you understand that, you will have no success in undermining Wikipedia.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:08am) *

When I wrote my senior thesis in college on the topic of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007, I found that a good amount of the research I needed for the paper involved transcripts from congressional hearings from the 1890s and 1910s which are only in a handful of major libraries in each state. Also, I found that another good portion of my paper dealt with material that only existed in the 5th circuit courthouse in Louisiana. So I went to the New York Public Library one day and dug through piles of old congressional hearings that were so old I could not photocopy them. Luckily I had surmised this and brought along my digital camera and was able to photograph the documents. For the 5th circuit materials I contacted the law librarian who graciously scanned the documents for me. For an aspect of the 10th circuit history in the midwest I ended up doing a phone interview with a lawyer in the region.

What was the topic of the thesis? It sounds like something I'd be interested in. I assume you also used the CIS hearing sets on microfiche, or were those not accessible where you were?

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 5th July 2009, 6:16pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 5th July 2009, 12:53pm) *
Kelly, you may be more right than you know in this particular case. The candidate is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Davemeistermoab. The roads sub-cabal ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads") is likely the most politicized, anal-retentive and dictatorial of all of Wikipedia's many sub-cabals (and given this is Wikipedia we are talking about, that's really saying something).

Having another roadster as an admin will be useful to the roadster agenda of fending off Those Not Of The Body from road articles, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mgillfr. As a roadster, he will be expected to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Rschen7754, as well as editing as he did before. However, a few admin actions not involving roads will also be expected, as it is considered useful for the road cabal to have some strategic alliances with non-roadster admins.

In other words, it's a pretty safe bet that wiki-politics is behind this RfA.
While I wasn't specifically appraised of any of this, none of it surprises me. Wikipedia is teeming with cliques, cabals, interest groups, and power centers, and they are all constantly clashing one against another as each fights to present its favored content in the manner which most pleases its members.

What perpetually amuses me is the way that often very complex power relationships arise epiphenomenally (sic) out of this jumble, obviously without any overarching plan, but nonetheless with enough apparent structure for the conspiracists (sic) to allege a Vast Conspiracy which clearly doesn't exist.

Almost nobody at Wikipedia is dedicated to Wikipedia; virtually everyone there is dedicated to some other goal, and is only using Wikipedia as a means to accomplish it. Until you understand that, you will have no success in undermining Wikipedia.


Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

Welcome to Jimmys world of lies, dam lies, and Wikipedia.




Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 5th July 2009, 7:33pm) *
Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

But aside from that, how do you like it?

Posted by: victim of censorship

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 5th July 2009, 6:34pm) *

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 5th July 2009, 7:33pm) *
Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.

But aside from that, how do you like it?


I wish I could click my ruby slipper three times and say the words...

Wikipedia be gone... Wikipedia be gone... Wikipedia be gone...

And Wikipedia would disappear in to the ether.

But, I truly believe most people on Wikipedia are either of the followings class

Deluded and ignorant

The Evil

Either way, any one advocating or apologizing for Wikipedia is an enabler of the Swamp of Wikipedia and as such, is responsible for it's evil.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 5th July 2009, 3:40pm) *
Either way, any one advocating or apologizing for Wikipedia is an enabler of the Swamp of Wikipedia and as such, is responsible for it's evil.
I'd like to enable her swamp, if you know what I mean.

(And if you do, please fill me in.)

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 5th July 2009, 7:33pm) *

Wikipedia is a swamp full of miscreant sociopaths, empty soul misanthropes, out control mmog dickheads, asssholes, jagoffs, and power drunk prick, as well as certifiable pedophiles, sex deviant and other predators of young children and "Nambla" members.. Including, every fruit, nut, "berry", freak and lose screw nutball. in the world.


I'll put that with "The anarchist project to fuck up human history".