Giano vs Postlethwaite, Who is the best Options

[Peter Damian]

Prompted by the recent spat between Giano and Postlethwaite, I had a look at their contributions, to see who was ‘better’. Postlethwaite has a massive 20,000 edits. Giano (II) has a mere 12,000. Postlethwaite’s contributions, however, are mostly stubs of which these are typical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burneside a dreary town in Northern England (“The village has one grocery store, one bakery and a paper shop which is part of the Croppers paper mill.It also has a pub named the Jolly Anglers and a Chipshop named the Jolly fryer”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Gaba An obscure CEO of a film company, which consists mostly of the sentence “Harold Gaba is the CEO and president of Act III Communications Holdings, L.P, a U.S. film production company.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Beasts The Wild Beasts, an obscure garage band who went to the same school as him (“Wild Beast [sic] quickly moved into their first practice studio at Mintsfeet Industrial Estate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underbarrow an obscure hamlet in the north of England, consisting of a four uninteresting sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugese A 40 word stub about a dog variety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_parsnip a similarly-sized stub about water parsnips. “the Water Parsnip is a herb belonging to the parsnip family and comes from Africa and some parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”

His entire contribution to mainspace thus consists of about 400 words on utterly non-notable subjects. What happened to those 20,000 edits?

By contrast Giano is the author of many finely crafted articles, including the following

The magisterial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince%27s_Palace_of_Monaco (“During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the palace and its owners became symbols of the slightly risqué glamour and decadence that was associated with Monte Carlo and the French Riviera. Glamour and theatricality became reality when the American film star Grace Kelly became chatelaine to the palace in 1956.”)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Arbuthnot “She described Castlereagh as her "dearest and best friend" until his death in 1822, when she transferred her affections to the other great 19th-century Anglo-Irish peer, the Duke of Wellington.”

and many more. Postlethwaite justifies his aggressive blocking and bully-boy tactics as preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But what has he done for the encylopedia? And how does the blocking and bullying of contributors who contribute the real content, really prevent disruption? Isn’t this disruptive itself? Something has gone badly wrong.

[Yehudi]

It's not what you've contributed, it's the way you've done it. Who has complied better with WP:NPA, WP:BenicetotheCabal and other key policies?

[Peter Damian]

It's not what you've contributed, it's the way you've done it. Who has complied better with WP:NPA, WP:BenicetotheCabal and other key policies?

In any organisation you accept there is a division between those who contribute the real stuff, and those with not much talent except for adminstration. The latter are often genuinely useful. But there is a limit. This guy’s first edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=84312597

was made while he was still at school, in 2006. He is not much older than my children. He still works where he grew up, and has little experience of the outside world. There is no comparison between him and a valuable (albeit wayward and often arrogant) contributor like Giano. Yet he is entrusted with the direction of the world’s favourite encylopedia.

[edit] Of course 'fauvre' is not Latin for Wild Beasts.

[edit] Also the article was deleted once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ion/Wild_beasts

Yet another garage band. Elomis 02:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[jorge]

Prompted by the recent spat between Giano and Postlethwaite, I had a look at their contributions, to see who was ‘better’. Postlethwaite has a massive 20,000 edits. Giano (II) has a mere 12,000. Postlethwaite’s contributions,

Giano had two earlier accounts- Giano and Conte Giacomo which had 9206 and 1526 edits respectively making a total of 23, 112.

[Peter Damian]

Prompted by the recent spat between Giano and Postlethwaite, I had a look at their contributions, to see who was ‘better’. Postlethwaite has a massive 20,000 edits. Giano (II) has a mere 12,000. Postlethwaite’s contributions,

Giano had two earlier accounts- Giano and Conte Giacomo which had 9206 and 1526 edits respectively making a total of 23, 112.

Yes and there are some fine articles there too, such as West Wycombe Park.

But perhaps I am getting old. There used to be an automatic assumption that stuff like classical music or architecture or fine art was in some sense more important than garage bands or obscure towns, even if it was less popular. That was the unstated assumption behind the 'old' BBC. But the world has changed, as we know. Perhaps it is time to move on (cont. on p. 94).

[Moulton]

Going back to the Pajama Media commentary, which Jayjg conceded was right wing, I am struck by the preponderance of right wing, fascistic, police style practices favored by so many of our least favored admins.

After all, what is the Spammish Inquisition but a reprise of the Star Chamber long favored by notorious fascistic regimes.

In my own case, the RfC was orchestrated and scripted by a small cabal from the Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design who jointly shared the roles of plaintiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, in accordance with Lar's observation that Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process.

What is it about Wikipedia that it draws so many fascistic characters playing polizei into an enterprise that ought to be populated by professional scholars pursuing accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media?

[jorge]

What is it about Wikipedia that it draws so many fascistic characters playing polizei into an enterprise that ought to be populated by professional scholars pursuing accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media?

It's easy to play fascists when you're anonymous.

[Moulton]

It's easy to play fascists when you're anonymous.

Which goes a long way toward explaining why a number of WP critics believe WP admins should not be anonymous.

[Achromatic]

Prompted by the recent spat between Giano and Postlethwaite, I had a look at their contributions, to see who was ‘better’. Postlethwaite has a massive 20,000 edits. Giano (II) has a mere 12,000. Postlethwaite’s contributions, however, are mostly stubs of which these are typical:

...

His entire contribution to mainspace thus consists of about 400 words on utterly non-notable subjects. What happened to those 20,000 edits?

You also didn't note that, quite frankly, most of Ryan's edits, including several examples in your quotes alone, consist of the most utterly horrendous incorrect usage of grammar, and in several cases, elementary syntax of the English language. Ye gods.

[Milton Roe]

What is it about Wikipedia that it draws so many fascistic characters playing polizei into an enterprise that ought to be populated by professional scholars pursuing accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media?

See the Stanford Prisoner experiment. Young people without life experience find it almost impossible not to get drawn into this kind of thing, especially if they're given "permission" by some charismatic figure. Hitler Youth. Lord of the Flies. The gungho marines (Semper Fi, bro). Fifty year-old academics rarely get freshly drawn into some mass movement, as True Believers. That typically happens to 20 year-olds, looking for their new mommies and daddies as models.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[wikiwhistle]

You can't really compare Ryan and Giano. Give the boy a chance- he still has about another ten or fifteen years or something to develop a love of all that stuff my mum and dad tried to instill in me, by dragging me around stately homes. I'm 31 now and still have a rebellious love of pop music instead.


Ryan at least uses his real name (I assume.) Some people have no shame (joke) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Prompted by the recent spat between Giano and Postlethwaite, I had a look at their contributions, to see who was ‘better’. Postlethwaite has a massive 20,000 edits. Giano (II) has a mere 12,000. Postlethwaite’s contributions, however, are mostly stubs of which these are typical:

...

His entire contribution to mainspace thus consists of about 400 words on utterly non-notable subjects. What happened to those 20,000 edits?

You also didn't note that, quite frankly, most of Ryan's edits, including several examples in your quotes alone, consist of the most utterly horrendous incorrect usage of grammar, and in several cases, elementary syntax of the English language. Ye gods.

I did note it, but kept quiet, except for the appalling one about 'Fauvres' which he claimed was Latin, but is (mispelled) French. Remember that Giano's spelling is terrible also. Except, he very conscientiously works until it is right. Moreover overlying the spelling is an understanding, in Giano's case, of grammar and logic and thread and phrasing that make his articles so great. In each of these cases, Postlethwaite is entirely lacking.

Yet, we are now both in the clink, and the boy Postlethwaite struts round, swinging the keys.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Per Lar's guidance, Ryan drank the Kool-Aid.

[Gold heart]

....................... Postlethwaite justifies his aggressive blocking and bully-boy tactics as preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But what has he done for the encylopedia? And how does the blocking and bullying of contributors who contribute the real content, really prevent disruption? Isn’t this disruptive itself? Something has gone badly wrong.

Unfortunately, most admins are just common trollers. I studied this aspect on Wikipedia for months and months. Good editors eventually get eaten and consumed by hostile admins, who don't really give "two plonkers" for Wikipedia, who really only care about their admin-ship and their own survival. That's another reason why admins form themselves into micro-cabals, little self-protection societies. - (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Peter Damian]

....................... Postlethwaite justifies his aggressive blocking and bully-boy tactics as preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. But what has he done for the encylopedia? And how does the blocking and bullying of contributors who contribute the real content, really prevent disruption? Isn’t this disruptive itself? Something has gone badly wrong.

Unfortunately, most admins are just common trollers. I studied this aspect on Wikipedia for months and months. Good editors eventually get eaten and consumed by hostile admins, who don't really give "two plonkers" for Wikipedia, who really only care about their admin-ship and their own survival. That's another reason why admins form themselves into micro-cabals, little self-protection societies. - (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This certainly wasn't true when I started (2003). All the admins were unfailingly polite and worked hard for the best interests of those who were more inclinded to editing. The first indication things had changed were a strange block from HighinBC for questioning his judgment, then shortly later from Postlethwaite himself. E.g. I accused him of bullying & he said that was enough to earn a block.

I think at some point the need to 'build' an encyclopedia got swamped by the need to protect the existing content from genuine vandals.

[Proabivouac]

Unfortunately, most admins are just common trollers. I studied this aspect on Wikipedia for months and months.

I don't know about "most", but certainly many. To be a troll is to delight in initiating and escalating interpersonal conflict, which describes many administrators (JzG comes to mind,) and even some arbitrators, such as Morven (Mathew Brown) who define their self worth not by what they contribute to the project, but by how many good faith contributors they can drive away.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Viridae]

What is it about Wikipedia that it draws so many fascistic characters playing polizei into an enterprise that ought to be populated by professional scholars pursuing accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media?

See the Stanford Prisoner experiment. Young people without life experience find it almost impossible not to get drawn into this kind of thing, especially if they're given "permission" by some charismatic figure. Hitler Youth. Lord of the Flies. The gungho marines (Semper Fi, bro). Fifty year-old academics rarely get freshly drawn into some mass movement, as True Believers. That typically happens to 20 year-olds, looking for their new mommies and daddies as models.

Is the results of the stanford prison experiment soley attributable to the impressionsim of youth though? I was of the understanding that the conclusion was that humans willingly submit to authority, adn that conclusion you draw you undermine the published on.

[wikiwhistle]

Yes, it was that -anyone- could become corrupted by power or something like that. I mean, JzG is 40-something I think (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The Milgram experiment was said to show that people would injure others if they were told to, and the Zimbardo experiment said people with status felt less need to exhibit social graces- or something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

What is curious is how it all can have started on wiki- I mean Jimbo -claims- not to be a despo, hes definitely not anal-seeming, so who was the first higher-up on wiki who started this trend and inspired all these people?

[Peter Damian]

Yes, it was that -anyone- could become corrupted by power or something like that. I mean, JzG is 40-something I think (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The Milgram experiment was said to show that people would injure others if they were told to, and the Zimbardo experiment said people with status felt less need to exhibit social graces- or something (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

What is curious is how it all can have started on wiki- I mean Jimbo -claims- not to be a despo, hes definitely not anal-seeming, so who was the first higher-up on wiki who started this trend and inspired all these people?

Jefferson said (something like) most people can withstand a great deal of adversity. Few people can withstand a great deal of power.

Most institutions are designed in recognition of this fact, and suitable checks and balances applied, e.g. non-executive directors, upper and lower houses, and so on. There is also the notion of personal accountability, which means at the very least a real-life name and a real-life address.

[Lar]

Per Lar's guidance, Ryan drank the Kool-Aid.

Eh?