Sam Blacketer Options Rating

[Random832]

So has anyone actually run the "backlit with a halo" picture that he removed from the article? I guess not, because that might make the removal look reasonable

[Snowey]

By your chosen measures, Wikipedia is a good deal less serious than your typical MMORPG.

Oh, I (and most on this forum) agree that Wikipedia operates like an MMO no matter what policy says it is "WP:NOT." But to see an arbitrator downplay Wikipedia and invoke the MMO comparison in defense of those who make decisions for the project? Unexpected.

[One]

The Foundation makes clear that even Arbitrators are not considered volunteers in any legal sense. We are user-selected referees in a multi-user environment. That's why I doubt it's a necessity for him to declare the position.

That said, I think that our job is to make Wikipedia less like a game and more like a collaborative project. In form the comparison to a MMORPG is apt.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 10th June 2009, 4:58pm

[GlassBeadGame]

The Foundation makes clear that even Arbitrators are not considered volunteers in any legal sense. We are user-selected referees in a multi-user environment. That's why I doubt it's a necessity to declare the position.

That said, I think that our job is to make Wikipedia less like a game and more like a collaborative project, but in form the comparison to a MMORPG is apt.

So do you enjoy being a link in a chain of irresponsibility? My guess is you do it for the chicks.

[Moulton]

Even in a serious project, there will always be disputes, rivalries, competing schools of thought, and contests.

How such competitions are managed distinguishes gaming cultures from collaborations.

Wikipedia is not managed in a way that diminishes gaming and enhances collaboration.

Because there is no functional content dispute resolution process, unresolved content disputes generally end up as conduct cases. And all cases that come before ArbCom are inherently contests between rivals.

In this manner, Wikipedia manages to construct itself as a gaming culture even though it superficially purports to be a collaboration project.

[Coren]

Because there is no functional content dispute resolution process, unresolved content disputes generally end up as conduct cases. And all cases that come before ArbCom are inherently contests between rivals.

Yes.

The trick, of course, is to actually construct such a content dispute resolution process in a way that manages to (a) not impose an editorial direction and (b) gets at least significant support from the very people who do, in fact, contribute.

-- Coren

[sbrown]

The Foundation makes clear that even Arbitrators are not considered volunteers in any legal sense.

What the Foundation in California thinks is irrelevant. Blacketer is in London working to English rules.

[Peter Damian]

Is there a thread discussing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy

? I don't know what to think of it. I like the idea of an article that is critical of Wikipedia on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, it is a real stinker. Pooh.

"The Sam Blacketer controversy is narcissism and self-absorbed navel gazing at its worst" (Thatcher)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 14th June 2009, 4:35pm

[Somey]

Is there a thread discussing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy

It's mentioned in this thread, but IMO the thread we're in right now seems appropriate to mention it in, at least. However, at the moment I personally don't consider it to be especially critical of Wikipedia at all.

Of course, the article doesn't mention Wikipedia Review or Mr. Tarantino, without whom none of this would probably have happened, but that's just par for the course...

[RMHED]

Is there a thread discussing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Blacketer_controversy

It's mentioned in this thread, but IMO the thread we're in right now seems appropriate to mention it in, at least. However, at the moment I personally don't consider it to be especially critical of Wikipedia at all.

Of course, the article doesn't mention Wikipedia Review or Mr. Tarantino, without whom none of this would probably have happened, but that's just par for the course...

In the words of Jimmy Wales*; "This navel gazing shit is an embarassment to Wikipedia, the asshole who started this miserable fucking excuse of an article should be kicked in the balls and banned until hell freezes over"

*If he were to speak freely without the velvet gag of civility that is.

[Snowey]

(Removed to admin retirement forum.)

This post has been edited by Snowey: Mon 15th June 2009, 11:29pm

[LaraLove]

In the words of Jimmy Wales*; "This navel gazing shit is an embarassment to Wikipedia, the asshole who started this miserable fucking excuse of an article should be kicked in the balls and banned until hell freezes over"

*If he were to speak freely without the velvet gag of civility that is.

I'd have much more respect for him if he took this approach instead of the Ecstasy-induced-like comments we're normally fed.

[RMHED]

In the words of Jimmy Wales*; "This navel gazing shit is an embarassment to Wikipedia, the asshole who started this miserable fucking excuse of an article should be kicked in the balls and banned until hell freezes over"

*If he were to speak freely without the velvet gag of civility that is.

I'd have much more respect for him if he took this approach instead of the Ecstasy-induced-like comments we're normally fed.

Imagine the confusion this would cause if Jimmy started telling people to go fuck themselves, the civilty guard would probably suffer some kind of mental breakdown.

Jimmy Wales says "Fuck you civility, I'm the founder and I'll say whatever I fucking want, you miserable little dipshits"

[Eva Destruction]

In the words of Jimmy Wales*; "This navel gazing shit is an embarassment to Wikipedia, the asshole who started this miserable fucking excuse of an article should be kicked in the balls and banned until hell freezes over"

*If he were to speak freely without the velvet gag of civility that is.

I'd have much more respect for him if he took this approach instead of the Ecstasy-induced-like comments we're normally fed.

Imagine the confusion this would cause if Jimmy started telling people to go fuck themselves, the civilty guard would probably suffer some kind of mental breakdown.

Jimmy Wales says "Fuck you civility, I'm the founder and I'll say whatever I fucking want, you miserable little dipshits"

They'd all instantly start claiming they'd never believed in the civility policy and it was all someone else's fault. Same way no-one in Russia ever believed in communism and no German ever voted for Hitler.

[GlassBeadGame]

They'd all instantly start claiming they'd never believed in the civility policy and it was all someone else's fault. Same way no-one in Russia ever believed in communism and no German ever voted for Hitler.

Someday it will be impossible to find anyone who ever edited Wikipedia.

[Milton Roe]

They'd all instantly start claiming they'd never believed in the civility policy and it was all someone else's fault. Same way no-one in Russia ever believed in communism and no German ever voted for Hitler.

Good apocryphal story has Khrushchev criticizing the dead Stalin in some speech, and somebody somewhere in the audience says "And where were YOU when all this was happening?"

Khrushchev says: "Who said that!?"

[Silence from the audience]

Khrushchev: "Well, THAT'S where I was!"