Welcome to new members, Please join Options Rating

[Cedric]

I've lurked here for a while, reading a fair bit, and you've convinced me of some problems with Wikipedia beyond those I could identify myself. I'm not out to destroy Wikipedia, just like many of you, but I am interested in trying to explore how things could be changed. Alas, I lack the clout to inspire others, but hopefully every voice counts.

Indeed, pretty much all of us here at WR do not favor taking action to destroy Wikipedia, not even those of us (like myself) who think that its destruction would be a good thing. As you read on, you should discover that the idea that we are plotting such action is just more BADSITES propaganda (as you already seem to be learning). WP is well along in the process of destroying itself. Affirmative action taken to "destroy" WP would find little if any favor here because 1) it's useless, 2) if discovered, it would be a needless distraction, and 3) anyhow, it could never measure up to the efforts of the cabalistas who are witlessly destroying WP from within.

When it comes to this, we here at WR prefer to just make popcorn.

[AGK]

Thanks for the welcome.

I created my account here some months ago mostly on a point of principle: I wished at that time to make a quiet stand against the view that Wikipedia Review is a dark netherworld to be repressed, dismissed, and ignored. That principle is one I continue to believe in: Wikipedia is badly in need of a forum for criticism. WR has the potential to be that forum, if only the poisoning by excessively extreme views can be worked around.

Following Fritzpoll's lead, above, I'll note that I'm a neutral lurker, and strive to maintain that image. I suspect I have a lot to say, however: I'm an ArbCom clerk, a MedCom member, and an enwiki administrator. Too many "influential" editors are unwilling to associate with WR, and I therefore also suspect that this may not be my last post. ;-)

We shall see.

Many thanks again for the welcome.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Thanks for the welcome.

I created my account here some months ago mostly on a point of principle: I wished at that time to make a quiet stand against the view that Wikipedia Review is a dark netherworld to be repressed, dismissed, and ignored. That principle is one I continue to believe in: Wikipedia is badly in need of a forum for criticism. WR has the potential to be that forum, if only the poisoning by excessively extreme views can be worked around.

Following Fritzpoll's lead, above, I'll note that I'm a neutral lurker, and strive to maintain that image. I suspect I have a lot to say, however: I'm an ArbCom clerk, a MedCom member, and an enwiki administrator. Too many "influential" editors are unwilling to associate with WR, and I therefore also suspect that this may not be my last post. ;-)

We shall see.

Many thanks again for the welcome.

Welcome.

Anyone interested in Scottish trains can't be all bad

[GlassBeadGame]

Thanks for the welcome.

I created my account here some months ago mostly on a point of principle: I wished at that time to make a quiet stand against the view that Wikipedia Review is a dark netherworld to be repressed, dismissed, and ignored. That principle is one I continue to believe in: Wikipedia is badly in need of a forum for criticism. WR has the potential to be that forum, if only the poisoning by excessively extreme views can be worked around.

Following Fritzpoll's lead, above, I'll note that I'm a neutral lurker, and strive to maintain that image. I suspect I have a lot to say, however: I'm an ArbCom clerk, a MedCom member, and an enwiki administrator. Too many "influential" editors are unwilling to associate with WR, and I therefore also suspect that this may not be my last post. ;-)

We shall see.

Many thanks again for the welcome.

Welcome to WR. I would suggest you take the time to carefully read and come to understand the positions of what you say are "extreme" posters. Many of us WR "hardliners" have views (responsibility/ accountability) that would be very mainstream outside of WP. The only people currently with nutter views are a few isolated outliers and some WP fanatic loyalists. You will also need to establish your ideas with the quality of your contributions here. Your stated "credentials" will not possess as much currency as you might hope.

[Milton Roe]

Many of us WR "hardliners" have views (responsibility/ accountability) that would be very mainstream outside of WP.

Exactly. That's a thought that is worthy of enough repetition that it ought to be part of our logo occassionally, or our guest sign-in package.

Welcome.

[AGK]

Welcome to WR. I would suggest you take the time to carefully read and come to understand the positions of what you say are "extreme" posters. Many of us WR "hardliners" have views (responsibility/ accountability) that would be very mainstream outside of WP. The only people currently with nutter views are a few isolated outliers and some WP fanatic loyalists. You will also need to establish your ideas with the quality of your contributions here. Your stated "credentials" will not possess as much currency as you might hope.

I make no attempt at using my "credentials" as bargaining chips for, well, for anything. I was expressing my surprise at the number of editors who do have those credentials and yet do not contribute or, indeed, seem to follow developments here. Call it "thinking aloud," I suppose.

I would agree with your colouring of the majority of WR's "extreme" views as rather ordinary outside of Wikipedia itself. When Wikipedia comes up in the course of everyday conversation (which it rarely does, admittedly), the overwhelming impression is that it is "unreliable" or "inaccurate." No opinion is ever expressed on the community—which, to the reader, is often invisible—but I would suspect many of them would share WR's view that it is a bureaucratic and unaccountable oligarchy. I disagree, of course, but, as a contributor to Wikipedia and a member of that oligarchy, I'm naturally biased.

I do maintain, however, that a proportion of opinions expressed here on WR are those of individuals disillusioned with Wikipedia as a result of personal experiences. (I think primarily here of banned editors with a qualm over Wikipedia administrator X, Y, or Z.)

[gomi]

I do maintain, however, that a proportion of opinions expressed here on WR are those of individuals disillusioned with Wikipedia as a result of personal experiences. (I think primarily here of banned editors with a qualm over Wikipedia administrator X, Y, or Z.)

While many come here as a result of being banned -- often for no good reason, as Wikipedia bans people at more-or-less the drop of a hat -- but also arrive with or quickly adopt a more generalized mistrust of Wikipedia.

Some Reviewers are disillusioned at the community, and some are disillusioned over the lost opportunity of a real online encyclopedia, but either way, being banned hardly ever results in simply "a qualm" over a particular admin. While the blood sport of pointing out the worst abuses of the many abusive admins is good fun and diverting, the real criticism of Wikipedia here for the last year or more concerns its ultimate failure as both a community and an encyclopedia, not the small-minded antics of the individuals guards in the asylum.

[Luís Henrique]

Hello... newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

I have found this message board by searching for online criticism of Wikipedia, after some weird experiences there. I am particularly interested in discussing the use of non-English sources in articles about history and society of foreign countries - especially Brazil -, and the existence of little cabals controlling those articles.

I'm Brazilian, 51, civil servant, have a History degree (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), leftist political activist (Marxist, Workers Party), live in Brasília, have lived in Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro. My main general interests are, in no particular order, military history, Marxist theory, technologic history, linguistics, fictional literature.

Luís Henrique

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Hello... newbie here.

Welcome, Luís.

What the initiation rites are?

I think you just completed them.

I have found this message board by searching for online criticism of Wikipedia, after some weird experiences there. I am particularly interested in discussing the use of non-English sources in articles about history and society of foreign countries - especially Brazil -, and the existence of little cabals controlling those articles.

Recommend you look at a few of the current and older threads, and contribute from your own experience. Problems arising where WP editors lack knowledge/sense about other countries crop up sometimes - see for example http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17731, and a personal favourite of mine, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15472

[Moulton]

What the initiation rites are?

1. Sign the Disloyalty Oath.

2. Swear off Kool Aid.

3. Enter a Twelve Step Program to learn how to solve Greek Letter Rebus Puzzles.

[Son of a Yeti]

Hello... newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

Dunno. Denounce at least three WP admins and one Arbcom member?

[Jon Awbrey]

Hello … newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

I have found this message board by searching for online criticism of Wikipedia, after some weird experiences there. I am particularly interested in discussing the use of non-English sources in articles about history and society of foreign countries — especially Brazil —, and the existence of little cabals controlling those articles.

I'm Brazilian, 51, civil servant, have a History degree (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), leftist political activist (Marxist, Workers Party), live in Brasília, have lived in Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro. My main general interests are, in no particular order, military history, Marxist theory, technologic history, linguistics, fictional literature.

Luís Henrique

I had some rather bizarre experiences myself on the Portuguese Wikipedia, as User:JonAwbrey, after I discovered that some people had translated a few of my English Wikipedia articles there, and I went to help update them.

I never got clear on how many Portuguese Wikipedias there were, but they seemed to spend a lot of time fighting over dialect issues, even worse than UK vs. US idiots, er, idioms.

Could you shed some light on that?

Mods, please feel free split stuff off that doesn't belong on FAQ.

Jon Awbrey

[Milton Roe]

Hello... newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

Next, post something like:

That jerks chains a lot. But I see you already did that. Argentinian White Race connection very clever. Boys from Brazil next? It's all in the nuance.

[Luís Henrique]

Hello... newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

Next, post something like:

That jerks chains a lot. But I see you already did that. Argentinian White Race connection very clever. Boys from Brazil next? It's all in the nuance.

Do you have a source that these people are Aryan?

Some of them look Bantu-Uralian to me.

Luís Henrique

[Milton Roe]

Hello... newbie here. What the initiation rites are?

Next, post something like:

That jerks chains a lot. But I see you already did that. Argentinian White Race connection very clever. Boys from Brazil next? It's all in the nuance.

Do you have a source that these people are Aryan?

Some of them look Bantu-Uralian to me.

Luís Henrique

It's not a well-defined term. Labeling people with non-well defined terms leads to unnecessary arguments.

Hell, labeling ANYTHING with non-well-defined terms leads to arguments.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not a well-defined term. Labeling people with non-well defined terms leads to unnecessary arguments.

And, arguably, to World Wars.

Hell, labeling ANYTHING with non-well-defined terms leads to arguments.

Is "non-well-defined" a well defined term?

Luís Henrique

[Milton Roe]

It's not a well-defined term. Labeling people with non-well defined terms leads to unnecessary arguments.

And, arguably, to World Wars.

Hell, labeling ANYTHING with non-well-defined terms leads to arguments.

Is "non-well-defined" a well defined term?

Luís Henrique

No it isn't. Would you like to have an argument?

[Luís Henrique]

No it isn't. Would you like to have an argument?

It would prove your point, wouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

[Milton Roe]

No it isn't. Would you like to have an argument?

It would prove your point, wouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

No, it wouldn't!

[Luís Henrique]

No, it wouldn't!

But if I nuked you, it would make my point...

Luís Henrique