Simple English Wikipedia, 50 times smaller, but still more stupid Options

[FurWissen2]

The Simple Wikipedia is about 50 times smaller than English Wikipedia, but the unprofessional behavior of the editors, the policies, and the way the policies are enforced are idiotic. Most editors there are Western European kids who have nothing to do. The Wikipedia lovers abound there, people who are extremely opposed to changes in Wikipedia, administrators who are hasty to use the tools when not completely informed about a situation, and people who are just immature.

The people there worship Wikipedia. Most of them hardly ever question policy, they instead blindly follow it as if it's dogma. The ones that frequently appear demonstrate their lack of seriousness and consideration for the real-life consequences of Wikipedia, by treating a collaborative website of its nature as a game, competitions like the WikiCup being obsessed over. Also see how the Simple Wikipedians are objecting so highly to flagged revisions, though they seem to provide no rational argument against it. They all just act like a bunch of inconsiderate children that have been indoctrinated into Wikipedia at a young age. I have nothing against children, though they should learn about the consequences of allowing Wikipedia biographies to remain so unmonitored, with such a small amount of regulation before they go spouting "All for the Wiki" propaganda. I was browsing the Christopher Columbus article and I saw something about him reaching Pelham, New York instead of India (when he actually came to a Bahamian island). It was there for three months. What if that was a biography being vandalized with plausible, but false, information?

I will continue...

[Kennedy]

I love this website! Always good for a laugh. Always good for reading a well formed debate. Although I must say I am impressed you can read Simple.Wikipedia from all the way up there on your high horses. Whats the weather like up there?

People in chocolate teapots shouldn't look gift horses on the hot tin roof... Try sorting out worse problems at en.wiki before criticising our project.

Between this incoherent post and your opposition to flagged revisions for BLPs, it's obvious that you're an intellectual child (and probably actual one too).

The "A young brain is good for the Wiki" on the top of his talkpage prior to his retirement, unretirement, retirement again and string of further contributions despite being "retired" is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it?

(editing to add) So now he's running for Bureaucrat. Kennedy, your talkpage is kind of – er – special. I leave it up to you to decide in what sense of the word.

Thats fair. I did retire a few times, but I admit that I don't find editing en.wiki enjoyable for reasons on this thread. A bunch of people so convinced of their own authority that they come across as arrogant. I am trying to help Wikipedia, yet all you do is criticise when I put a retired notice on my page. Well done. Your debating skills are excellent. Can't argue my points, so you criticise me instead. Are you a politician by any chance?

Also, no, I am not a child, neither physically or mentally. And what are you implying by "special"? Thats not even funny.

I do look forward to your response, as I am sure you will find more incriminating diffs or links, instead of answering my points. Good luck!

[Wikileaker]

Look, we know you're trying to help Wikipedia. Everybody does. That's not the problem though - the problem is that sewp and most of its editors are incompetent. It might be due to immaturity, poor social skills, or just pure idiocy, but your entire "project" is plagued by useless humps. The only way to solve the problem is to either get rid of the drama llamas or shut the godforsaken place down.

This post has been edited by Wikileaker: Fri 6th February 2009, 9:22am

[Kennedy]

Look, we know you're trying to help Wikipedia. Everybody does. That's not the problem though - the problem is that sewp and most of its editors are incompetent. It might be due to immaturity, poor social skills, or just sure idiocy, but your entire "project" is plagued by useless humps. The only way to solve the problem is to either get rid of the drama llamas or shut the godforsaken place down.

I know of a couple of editors who would fit that description, but, because I am not active at en.wiki I dont know the history of everyone.

The trouble is, we got rid of a few people, but there are others who want to give the person one more chance. FastReverter/StaticHawk/ShockingFalcon or whatever the hell you want to call him was banned, but we had to give him one more chance. (Although he is doing okay just now.) Another is Jonas D Rand, who was banned, so far successfully.

Tharnton345 is blocked too, although only for 1 year. Again, people wanted to give someone who does no good, another chance.

There is another two I'd like to get rid of, but I doubt its possible. One is even an admin.

The thing is, most of our editors are fine. There are no issues on en.wiki. Most are in good standing at en.wiki. There is only a couple who give us a stigma as "Wikipedia playground".

I hate to use another cliche but: Don't judge a book by its cover. You (plural) only see the bad points. You only see a small amount of what goes on. Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

This post has been edited by Kennedy: Fri 6th February 2009, 9:35am

[Moulton]

All the world's a stage.

Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

The assumption that one can "get past the drama" is a potentially fatal misconception.

It's like going to the circus and thinking, "Once you get past the circus acts, the discussion seminars are OK."

Ask yourself how it comes to be that there is so much disruptive and distracting political dramaturgy on a project that is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise to craft an encyclopedia.

If you study the system architecture of Wikimedia projects, you discover that they are optimally designed to be drama engines (and poorly designed to be scholarly enterprises).

For starters, all the actors are wearing quick-change costumes. They strut on and off the stage as they engage in hilarious antagonistic encounters full of sound and fury (but signifying nothing).

Here, let me illustrate...

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

[JoseClutch]

All the world's a stage.

Once you get past the drama, its not as bad as it seems.

The assumption that one can "get past the drama" is a potentially fatal misconception.

It's like going to the circus and thinking, "Once you get past the circus acts, the discussion seminars are OK."

Ask yourself how it comes to be that there is so much disruptive and distracting political dramaturgy on a project that is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise to craft an encyclopedia.

If you study the system architecture of Wikimedia projects, you discover that they are optimally designed to be drama engines (and poorly designed to be scholarly enterprises).

For starters, all the actors are wearing quick-change costumes. They strut on and off the stage as they engage in hilarious antagonistic encounters full of sound and fury (but signifying nothing).

Here, let me illustrate...

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

Moultan

If you have ever worked in a university (and I am fairly confident that you have), then you should know they are drama engines of epic proportions. They also have seminars, where occasionally we generate new knowledge, like that electricity and magnetism are connected.

Wikipedia generates GNU knowledge, not new knowledge, but otherwise the principles are the same. The politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

[Bottled_Spider]

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow"......

See? I'm not making this up. Shakespeare noted it well, centuries ago.

The politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

For Simpleton Wikipedia and associations with Shakespeare, you have to look to Richard III.

"An honest tale speeds best, being plainly told", "The world is grown so bad, that wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch", and "So wise so young, they say, do never live long".

Oh, and (of course!) "A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!". That one's especially dedicated to the Kidney guy.