Sleazy popularism beats stuffy erudition, Split from "Arbitrary notions" thread Options

[EricBarbour]

For followers of the inside play, the comments by Gerard and Raul about Bishonen back in 2005 indicate the rift that ultimately exploded again this year - when Bishonen banned FT2, and eventually saw him having to resign, humiliated.
It was all to get back at David Gerard, and was another act in these tedious Giano wars.

And how does this build an "encyclopedia", prithee?
Does this soap opera go on until the sun explodes?

Not only is it assholes at play, it's always the same assholes.

Lar also genuinely appears to want to participate in high-level administrative work because he genuinely enjoys it and believes that he can be effective at it, not because he has any kind of nefarious agenda or has a narcissistic personality disorder screaming for gratification.

Jury's still out on this.

So, when two editors like FT2 and Lar get attacked and hectored by other power brokers in Wikipedia, I think it's a cause for concern if you want Wikipedia to succeed. I don't think that Giano has an agenda to control any content or reinforce his ego, but some of the other editors who have been allied with him lately apparently do.

"if you want Wikipedia to succeed"? May I suggest that, at this late date,
only the delusional or the deranged would think that Wikipedia can "succeed".
It has already failed, and continues to exist only to fuel the ongoing soapy opera.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 11th February 2009, 3:10am

[Milton Roe]

And how does this build an "encyclopedia", prithee?
Does this soap opera go on until the sun explodes?

Not only is it assholes at play, it's always the same assholes.

Hell is other administrators.

It all reminds me of the Ford Whitehouse in the mid 70's. There's Rumsfeld as Sec Def. Dick Cheney is Chief of Staff.

Then Ford fell, and we thought we were rid of them. No. Fast-forward 30 years and it's the same damn thing all over again. Same assholes, different roles. Sometimes the same roles.

[dtobias]

"if you want Wikipedia to succeed"? May I suggest that, at this late date,
only the delusional or the deranged would think that Wikipedia can "succeed".
It has already failed, and continues to exist only to fuel the ongoing soapy opera.

By all the measures of "success" normally used, Wikipedia is quite successful... with traffic in the top ten of websites, and used by the public probably more than all other encyclopedias combined. The fact that if you get inside it and look closely you see lots of absurdity doesn't make it a "failure" except in the wishful thinking of critics. It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

This post has been edited by dtobias: Wed 11th February 2009, 4:26am

[Jon Awbrey]

"if you want Wikipedia to succeed"? May I suggest that, at this late date, only the delusional or the deranged would think that Wikipedia can "succeed". It has already failed, and continues to exist only to fuel the ongoing soapy opera.

By all the measures of "success" normally used, Wikipedia is quite successful … with traffic in the top ten of websites, and used by the public probably more than all other encyclopedias combined. The fact that if you get inside it and look closely you see lots of absurdity doesn't make it a "failure" except in the wishful thinking of critics. It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

Sho Nuff.

It's not exactly the most successful con game ever devised — I think Mr. Madoff made off with that prize — but it's probably the best in the Working 4 Peanuts category …

Oh wait … I forgot …

Ja Ja

[Sarcasticidealist]

By all the measures of "success" normally used, Wikipedia is quite successful... with traffic in the top ten of websites, and used by the public probably more than all other encyclopedias combined. The fact that if you get inside it and look closely you see lots of absurdity doesn't make it a "failure" except in the wishful thinking of critics. It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

This is an important and oft-neglected point. Indeed, many of the criticisms of Wikipedia stem from this success: if it wasn't so dominant, for example, BLP issues wouldn't be of such great concern (people can anonymously defame people on all sorts of message boards around the internet, for example, but those don't normally turn up on the first page of search results). As well, there's concern that Wikipedia is so successful that it's driving works of genuine scholarship out of the market. I don't think most Wikipedians want Wikipedia to supplant EB and other real encyclopaedias, but a substantial subset certainly does, and that terrifies me.

Wikipedia's successful in much the same way that the United States is successful. And it needs to be criticized for approximately the same reasons.

I for instance haven't been challenged myself (unless it's challenged by sleaze and nastiness) and don't have anything for which I need to get revenge on the Lar front.

Of course, you've only opened a Lar front hypothetically, right?

[gomi]

By all the measures of "success" normally used, Wikipedia is quite successful... with traffic in the top ten of websites, and used by the public probably more than all other encyclopedias combined. The fact that if you get inside it and look closely you see lots of absurdity doesn't make it a "failure" except in the wishful thinking of critics.

It is sadly true of life in general that sleazy popularism beats stuffy erudition. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.", said P.T. Barnum, and while Jimbo might have that tattooed on his forearm, he might actually be the first major exception, albeit for different reasons.

[Jon Awbrey]

Mods,

It looks like this thread went off topic round about Post 30 or maybe Post 29, and it would be a shame to waste a perfectly good title on yet another one of those Circa 2004 discussions of «How Suckcesspool Is Wikipedia, Anyway?»

Like, Split, Daddy-O —

Jon

[Peter Damian]

It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

No it's the final product that is the problem. I don't care how it is made. You really don't see that do you.

[Milton Roe]

It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

No it's the final product that is the problem. I don't care how it is made. You really don't see that do you.

What final product? Yet another problem.

[dogbiscuit]

It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

No it's the final product that is the problem. I don't care how it is made. You really don't see that do you.

What final product? Yet another problem.

Ah, but that is a critical point. Contrary to the "it'll be fixed someday, therefore it is not a problem" it already is a final product, sitting on the Internet like a carelessly put together haggis.*



* Could have been worse, it could have been a French ragout, or a fricassee.

[Moulton]

It just makes Wikipedia join laws and sausages as things you are better off not seeing how they're made.

No it's the final product that is the problem. I don't care how it is made. You really don't see that do you.

What final product? Yet another problem.

The final product is The Woolworths Foundation School of Political Dramaturgy.

[EricBarbour]

The final product is The Woolworths Foundation School of Political Dramaturgy.

Perfectly put.
Especially since Woolworths recently closed the last of its stores.....

[dtobias]

Perfectly put.
Especially since Woolworths recently closed the last of its stores.....

The British Woolworths, anyway. The U.S. Woolworths closed over 10 years ago. According to that article, there are still (independent) Woolworths in Australia and South Africa, apparently never connected to the US or UK ones (which themselves used to be part of the same company as one another before splitting). According to the article in a highly reliable source, the U.S. Woolworths company transformed itself into Foot Locker, the athletic shoe store chain, the main piece of their operations that managed to survive the failure of other parts including the original five-and-dime-store chain. You can't get anything anywhere for a nickel or a dime any more anyway.