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!

[Eva Destruction]

[blah blah blah I don't agree with you, sewiki is great]

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!

All right then; give honest answers to these questions:

1. What do you see the purpose of sewiki as? Do you agree with its mission statement that "to be useful for children, those learning English, those wanting to know basic information about a topic (not in depth), those who are partially literate in English, and those who have learning disabilities, and serve as a basis for translating articles to other Wikipedias"
2. Do you think it meets these goals? If not, when do you think it will?
3. Name any three articles that in sewiki's own terms of being easier to understand are more informative then their equivalents on en-wiki, or the equivalents on Citizendium where they exist.
4. These three articles were the genuine (non cherry-picked) result of clicking Special:Random on sewiki three times; defend them: British Rail Class 306, 11554 Asios, England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)
5. You seem to say in your later posts here that the problems stem from a particular group of editors. If that's the case, why are they allowed to continue being disruptive; Lord knows en-wiki has problem editors, but generally people at least try to stop them. Why don't you?
6. Do you think a project specifically aimed at children should be especially thorough in vetting those in positions of responsibility? If no, why not; if yes, do you think your procedures are robust enough?

[dogbiscuit]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

[JoseClutch]

England. (The last in particular is a fiasco on so many levels I don't know where to start.)

My favourite line is "English culture - See English literature."

What ever happened to warm beer and cricket?

Your talents are being wasted on the internet. In all seriousness, quit your day job.