JzG: Wikipedia Review superfan Options

[Yehudi]

to what extent does WP appeal to the mentally ill more so than to the general public?

Depends on the type of mental illness. I'd be amazed to find that it appeals more to people with severe bipolar disorder, but it undoubtedly attracts people on certain points of the autistic spectrum (if you call that a mental illness).

[Jonny Cache]

To what extent does WP appeal to the mentally ill more so than to the general public?

Depends on the type of mental illness. I'd be amazed to find that it appeals more to people with severe bipolar disorder, but it undoubtedly attracts people on certain points of the autistic spectrum (if you call that a mental illness).

We already have Frau Docktor T's learned scholium on this score, and I could hardly dispute so astute a diagnosis of the WikiPandemic, so allow me to speculate on the more Neurotic than Psychotic end of the spectrum.

In every confidence game under the sun or moonie light, it is the intense desire of the sucker for an impossible dream — the infantile delusion of the mark that his newfound confidant was sent to help him realize his innate destiny to achieve something grand without hardly trying — that his ship full of free lunches has finally come in — that keeps the Game going, that keeps the pigeon sending good goods after bad, long after the unbamboobled, er, unbamboozled bystander would have seen the con for what it is.

That is the core of the malady, whatever course it may take from there.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 22nd October 2007, 9:06pm

[LessHorrid vanU]

I'm quite interested in any evidence of correlation between autism and editing wikipedia...

...but then I would.

[Jonny Cache]

Found It —

Mental illness and other cognitive handicaps are usually irrelevant for administrative purposes.

— Durova

Jonny

[Jonathan]

If we could get back on topic...

Typical Wikipedians, terrified of the very possibility that their seemingly perfect engine is tainted, and so they make up lies about the source of Criticism. I would challenge any WikipediAdmin or WikidepiUser that hates WR to look at the top 10 most viewed threads, and then tell us with a straight face that WR is unreliable and contributes nothing.

Puh-lease! I know there are some users here that are open to question (people like Amorrow are people who have tainted WR and who WR have removed, but there are a few more extreme guys like those who violate Godwin's Law and who are very abusive and sweary when talking about WikipediAdmins and such and also do the same to other WR members. Those types we could do without) but a lot of what is here is constructive criticism. And besides, if the SlimVirgin identity case that WR talks about is so untrue, then a) why is Slimmy so nervous and why did Slashdot proceed to promote the story which proved so damning of her?

It will take time, but with Wikipedia's ever declining situation, WR will eventually be exceedingly recognised, along with WikiTruth, as a definitive source for explaining what is wrong with Wikipedia and how it can be fixed.

God I haven't posted here in a while. It's good to be back! Especially from the cheery mood I always get from hearing Somey's and Johnny Cache's witticisms.

AB, from what I've seen on the Slashdot page where the article was, I see quite a lot of people discussing the revelations rather seriously. But why don't you answer why SlimVirgin also criticised Brandt for talking about alleged past boyfriends of hers, when he was in fact talking about a past boyfriend of Linda Mack/Sarah McEwan? Why has Slimmy written to WR doing the whole cease and desist bullshit if she has nothing to be scared of by the allegations? If Slimmy is asserting that Brandt has been talking about her past boyfriends, then Brandt by the same logic has been speaking truth and Slim has inadvertently revealed herself.

But seriously, read the top 10 most viewed threads on WR, oh criticisers of WR, and explain how WR cannot be considered as credible after all the important things it has helped to unveil on Wikipedia.

[AB]

[moving thingy about /. to another thread]

But why don't you answer why [Redacted1] also criticised [Redacted2] for talking about alleged past boyfriends of hers, when he was in fact talking about a past boyfriend of [Redacted3]? Why has [Redacted1] written to WR doing the whole cease and desist bullshit if she has nothing to be scared of by the allegations? If [Redacted1] is asserting that [Redacted2] has been talking about her past boyfriends, then [Redacted2] by the same logic has been speaking truth and [Redacted1] has inadvertently revealed herself.

I can't see into her head, but if it were me, it would be frightening whether or
not it was true. (Also, note that it was possible that some details were true and
others were incorrect.) If it were true, it would've been frightening because I
am trying to hide from the person who molested me as a child, and being outed
would jeopardise that. (Of course, she might not have the same reasons to fear
outing as I do, but worst case scenario, she might have enemies she needs to
hide from.) If it were not true, then of course certain false allegations might be
damaging to my reputation. Being worried about it either way, worrying about
it can't really be taken as evidence either way. Again, I really can only speak
for myself, but if it were me, I suspect the only significant difference in my
reaction as compared to hers would be how I tried to talk websites into
removing the material... which admittedly might be a big difference, but either
true or not, I don't think I'd be any less concerned than she is.

But seriously, read the top 10 most viewed threads on WR, oh criticisers of WR, and explain how WR cannot be considered as credible after all the important things it has helped to unveil on Wikipedia.

Firstly, I don't consider websites on which nearly anyone (in WR's case, anyone
with a non-free e-mail and a port 80, and even the non-free e-mail part isn't a
strict requirement, else I would not be posting) can post to be reliable. WR is not
singled out by this judgement. Secondly, accuracy and free speech are not
compatible goals. While I certainly don't think WR has an extreme pro free speech
view (and I note that if you did, I wouldn't like y'all near so much as I do), I don't
think y'all are going to go censor everything untrue or unproven to a certain degree
of certainty either. Thirdly, this does not mean that individual posters on WR, or
individual posts on WR, cannot be reliable in their own right, it merely means that
'because WR said so' is not sufficient cause for me to believe something where I
feel it is important for me to get it right. Also note that your idea of things which are
important to unveil may not be things I would consider to be important to unveil,
since your values (or, perhaps more likely, the relative priorities of your values)
most likely differ from mine.

This post has been edited by AB: Fri 26th October 2007, 5:57pm

[tarantino]

JzG has just closed, blanked and protected Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Unblocking_of_Daniel_Brandt.

[AB]

JzG has just closed, blanked and protected [redacted].

{{{{{JzG}}}}}

[LamontStormstar]

JzG has just closed, blanked and protected Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Unblocking_of_Daniel_Brandt.

I thought they closed community sanction board several months back?

[guy]

I thought they closed community sanction board several months back?

This was a subpage that must have been overlooked.

JzG probably hear from Ryulong about the need to save space on the servers.

[AB]

JzG probably hear from Ryulong about the need to save space on the servers. :mellow:

I don't think so. JzG has agreed with me that there's no need
to drag the names/pseudonyms of banned users through the
dirt on top of Google.

Anyway, perhaps rather than making fun of Ryulong for that,
we could try something like this:

Dear Ryulong,

I hear you've been deleting unused user pages per WP is
not Myspace, or something like that. Could you deleted
banned user pages as well, per WP is not Myspace or
any other reason you like? Since banned users are not
notable and WP is not, according to WP:RS, a reliable
source, I feel these pages constitute BLP violations. Please
note this is not a request, since apparently I am banned from
asking for courtesy blankings/deletions, but a suggestion.

Thanks,
AB

[guy]

Since banned users are not notable and WP is not, according to WP:RS, a reliable
source, I feel these pages constitute BLP violations.

That's definitely right, especially for identifiable people.

[Jonny Cache]

And of course Wikipedia is uncensored.

Ay, there's the rub …

Jonny Chafe

[LamontStormstar]

It would be nice if Taxwoman would come by and explain the bondage articles.

What is there that requires explanation? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that covers every aspect of human knowledge. Why is bondage less worthy of such treatment than Japanese cartoons or South African butchers?

Yes, some of these articles could be criticised for being in the wrong format; that is easily fixed. Yes, some have few or no references (like most Wikipedia articles); in mitigation, I'd say that good references are not that easy to come by, and a lot of bondage knowledge is passed on by word of mouth or reading bondage stories or now by web sites like Wipipedia which allegedly is not notable although it has plenty of links from Wikipedia. But look at Savage fold, where I linked to Savage's own web site when I wrote it and it still got flagged as unreferenced. And when there are references, they get deleted as linkspam (see Dog play).

And of course Wikipedia is uncensored. What does that mean if bondage articles get trimmed or redirected or deleted? Hogtie bondage was attacked for having pictures of naked or scantily dressed women. I have repeatedly said that if any man will come round to me, I'll tie him up and photograph him. And as for naked, I'll pretzel hogtie someone clothed, and they will realise how the clothes dig in and how they'd be less uncomfortable if naked.

Whatever gets said about Fred Bauder here, he has been very nice to me on Wikinfo.

Yay Taxwoman! Glad to see you here!



Well you quoted me and left out what I quoted, which was:

not to mention vastly more degrading stuff on Wikipedia

I never said there wasn't. I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP
that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual
bondage, among other things.

That it's more of it would be nice if you responded to AB's comment "I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual bondage, among other things."

It wasn't bondage in general, but AB's comment that I thought it would be beneficial if you discussed.


This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Sat 27th October 2007, 2:31pm

[thekohser]

And of course Wikipedia is uncensored. What does that mean if bondage articles get trimmed or redirected or deleted? Hogtie bondage was attacked for having pictures of naked or scantily dressed women. I have repeatedly said that if any man will come round to me, I'll tie him up and photograph him. And as for naked, I'll pretzel hogtie someone clothed, and they will realise how the clothes dig in and how they'd be less uncomfortable if naked.

I'm not exactly sure why I focus on the bondage articles on Wikipedia. I don't have any moral objection to them, per se. Nothing wrong with a saucy gal who's willing to be tied up in a GFDL copyright. So, let me try to put it to writing. The Foundation is trying to say they are bringing the sum of human knowledge to every human being on the planet. For 2,000 years, encyclopedias have been published -- that is, a named author or publishing firm stands behind the content as being their best representation of human knowledge. For the past 6 years, we've seen online encyclopedias that hide behind Section 230 to say, "Oh, we're not publishing this sum of human knowledge, we're just service providing it."

Okay, so "anything goes" -- quite literally -- on Wikipedia pages. Donors to the Foundation unfortunately think that most of Wikipedia's pages are about lovely things like hydrogen, golden retriever, and History of Europe. I cringe that they don't know that meanwhile rotten things are being done by the Hive with articles like Social apartheid in Brazil, Charles Peirce, and History of western Eurasia (née West Eurasia). The problems with articles like that are too difficult to explain to the impatient masses, though.

Therefore, I recklessly choose to present pages like Hogtie bondage, in the hopes that these pages quickly offend at least the most conservative of the impatient masses, and that they (at least) will stop donating to the Foundation.

Such is my reasoning, at least.

Greg

[WhispersOfWisdom]

That it's more of it would be nice if you responded to AB's comment "I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual bondage, among other things."

It wasn't bondage in general, but AB's comment that I thought it would be beneficial if you discussed.

I don't know anything about non-consensual bondage, I'm afraid. Anyone who indulges in it is a criminal and should probably go to prison.

But I must reject AB's comment. Would you be offended by technical articles about the uterus or the male genitalia that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual sex? Are there any Wikipedia articles that do explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual sex? It's not the function of my articles to deal with such criminal activities and I do not feel competent to write an article on them.

I opened a JzG thread and found myself "knee deep" in a gallery of bondage pictures. What a riot!
Maybe we should title the thread differently and also add some of his favorite pictures? This could get more views with a real racy title.

I do have a question about the pictures; looking at beautiful girls / women in any way shape or form.

Q: If bondage pictures were, in fact, not done with beautiful nude girls, do you really think that there would be much of an audience for same?

[the fieryangel]

Q: If bondage pictures were, in fact, not done with beautiful nude girls, do you really think that there would be much of an audience for same?

I think that this falls into the category of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...In other words, there are probably people who look for bondage photos of nude fat old men and who could care less about those with beautiful nude young girls.

Hey, whatever floats your boat is what I always say....

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 28th October 2007, 9:46pm

[AB]

That it's more of it would be nice if you responded to AB's comment "I feel offended by the bondage articles on WP that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual bondage, among other things."

It wasn't bondage in general, but AB's comment that I thought it would be beneficial if you discussed.

I don't know anything about non-consensual bondage, I'm afraid. Anyone who indulges in it is a criminal and should probably go to prison.

But I must reject AB's comment. Would you be offended by technical articles about the uterus or the male genitalia that fail to explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual sex? Are there any Wikipedia articles that do explain the negative psychological effects of non-consensual sex? It's not the function of my articles to deal with such criminal activities and I do not feel competent to write an article on them.

When a person is tied up, it is non-consensual unless the person being
tied up specifies otherwise. Why, then, if I say I was tied up, do people
assume it was consensual unless I specify that it was not?

Non-consensual bondage has a very long history, probably going back
before recorded history. To this day, it is estimated 27 million people are
enslaved around the world. And not only those held in slavery are tied
up against their will.

Consensual bondage would seem to be the exception, rather than the
rule.

[guy]

Nobody is minimising the horror of being tied up or imprisoned against your will. However, it is equally horrific to be raped. I think Taxwoman's point is that why should consensual bondage articles be attacked rather than those on consensual sex?