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...

[Eva Destruction]

I'm particularly taken by "After this [the 1707 Act of Union], the history of England becomes the history of Great Britain and United Kingdom." Manages to offend so many groups on so many levels. (Do you suppose he thinks that "after 1776, the history of Massachusetts becomes the history of the United States"?) Oh, and the fact that the sole reference in what's arguably one of the most important topics on an English-language project is to FIFA.

Oh, and just noticed "James left the country without a fight". I guess the Battle of the Boyne was just a figment of an overactive imagination.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Fri 6th February 2009, 8:39pm

[Bottled_Spider]

Oh, and just noticed "James left the country without a fight". I guess the Battle of the Boyne was just a figment of an overactive imagination.

He did, actually, leave without a fight (in December '88). In fact his "fleeing" was so hurried the silly bugger got caught after only a few miles, but was allowed to board a ship to France so as to not become a martyr. The Boyne was much later in July '90.

This post has been edited by Bottled_Spider: Fri 6th February 2009, 9:15pm

[Razorflame]

You guys obviously have nothing better to do than create drama over a project that is doing fairly well as of late. If you were actually doing what Wikipedia stands for (creating articles), even on the English Wikipedia, then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site. Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys. If you have nothing better to do than critize Wikipedia and all of its flaws, then you probably shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia because it would probably be better off without you.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You guys obviously have nothing better to do than create drama over a project that is doing fairly well as of late. If you were actually doing what Wikipedia stands for (creating articles), even on the English Wikipedia, then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site. Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys. If you have nothing better to do than critize Wikipedia and all of its flaws, then you probably shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia because it would probably be better off without you.

I've mostly stayed out of this, because I don't think it's nice to kick Simple English Wikipedia around. But in response to this post, I think you should be aware that
i. a good portion of the people here have no *desire* to build Wikipedia; rather, they would like to see it cease to exist.
ii. of those of us who do support Wikipedia's continued existence, there are quite a few people here who have done a great deal to build Wikipedia. For example, to my knowledge four of the top twenty writers of featured articles at en-wiki are here. So too are three current members of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, which I understand takes some significant amount of time as well.

That's the thing with ad hominems: not only are they not an intellectually sound debating technique, they can make you look really stupid if the attacks are unfounded.