Larry Sanger = "Mid-importance", according to WikiProject:Wikipedia Options

[thekohser]

My latest personal blog post takes a swipe at WikiProject:Wikipedia's "Importance scale".

Here's hoping the Wikipedia Review community enjoys.

Greg

[Eva Destruction]

My latest personal blog post takes a swipe at WikiProject:Wikipedia's "Importance scale".

Here's hoping the Wikipedia Review community enjoys.

Greg

The existence of WP:WikiProject Wikipedia is depressing on so many levels. (On their assessment scale, WR is ranked equal in importance to Wiki software and Wikimedia Foundation, incidentally. Just saying.)

[thekohser]

In case anyone misses the implied "bigger picture", I'm just fascinated with how the Wikipediots, culturally, are trained to follow their leader's example and even deploy an importance/ranking system to (probably sub-consciously) belittle those who don't agree with them.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 24th March 2009, 3:29pm

[LaraLove]

I'm amused to see Simple English Wikipedia ranked high, then further amused to see that Larry Sanger has now been upgraded to high. It's good, though. Someone with clue is paying attention.

Good work, Greg. As always.

[Jon Awbrey]

My latest personal blog post takes a swipe at WikiProject:Wikipedia's "Importance scale".

Here's hoping the Wikipedia Review community enjoys.

Greg

Good thing there's a pill for that …

Ja Ja

[Kato]

According to Jimbo-Juiced sycophants on Jimbo's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...38668#Nevermind

Jimbo Wales had a paid employee named Larry Sanger which he put in charge of something. Larry then decided that being the editor in chief at the time, was what made everything happen, and that he alone is responsible for its success. Do you think he is the only editor in chief who could've made this happen? I think a lot of people contributed, and it was the input of the community that shaped how things developed, not just one guy. Dream Focus 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Jon Awbrey]

According to Jimbo-Juiced sycophants on Jimbo's talk page:

User talk:Jimbo Wales&oldid=278838668#Nevermind

Jimbo Wales had a paid employee named Larry Sanger which he put in charge of something. Larry then decided that being the editor in chief at the time, was what made everything happen, and that he alone is responsible for its success. Do you think he is the only editor in chief who could've made this happen? I think a lot of people contributed, and it was the input of the community that shaped how things developed, not just one guy. Dream Focus 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He was just some Joseph looking for a manger.

Hardly belongs in the pantheon at all.

Ja Ja

[Son of a Yeti]

According to Jimbo-Juiced sycophants on Jimbo's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...38668#Nevermind

Jimbo Wales had a paid employee named Larry Sanger which he put in charge of something. Larry then decided that being the editor in chief at the time, was what made everything happen, and that he alone is responsible for its success. Do you think he is the only editor in chief who could've made this happen? I think a lot of people contributed, and it was the input of the community that shaped how things developed, not just one guy. Dream Focus 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone made this comparison but it's almost like Stalin ordering Trotsky scrubbed from photos of the revolution:
http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissa...reinventing.htm

Another nice example (this time it's one of the NKVD short lived bosses):
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research...g/stalin1+2.jpg

The latter example is even featured on WP itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

This post has been edited by Son of a Yeti: Tue 24th March 2009, 7:25pm

[Kato]

According to Jimbo-Juiced sycophants on Jimbo's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...38668#Nevermind

Jimbo Wales had a paid employee named Larry Sanger which he put in charge of something. Larry then decided that being the editor in chief at the time, was what made everything happen, and that he alone is responsible for its success. Do you think he is the only editor in chief who could've made this happen? I think a lot of people contributed, and it was the input of the community that shaped how things developed, not just one guy. Dream Focus 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone made this comparison but it's almost like Stalin ordering Trotsky scrubbed from photos of the revolution:
http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissa...reinventing.htm

Another nice example (this time it's one of the NKVD short lived bosses):
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research...g/stalin1+2.jpg

The letter example is even featured on WP itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

Cue that legendary Orwellian quote from SlimVirgin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=185660976

It really doesn't matter when a dispute began. It now exists. I'm not suggesting that we write Sanger wasn't the co-founder. I'm suggesting we choose wording that avoids the issue entirely

Larry History of Wikipedia

[thekohser]

Other pages of "Top" and "High" importance are rather instructive of what's important to Wikipediots.

From the Internet culture category, "Top" subjects include: MySpace and YouTube. "High" importance includes: Newgrounds, typographical error Teh, and Caramelldansen.

In the Internet category, some "Top" topics are: Jon Postel, Submarine communications cable, and Twitter. In the "High" importance rank are: Tiscali, Cross-site request forgery, and the well-known Acid3 test.

Now, if you're talkin' birds, then your "Top" importance articles include: Anseriformes and Mousebird. But way down in the "Low" importance category, the pecking order includes: American Flamingo, the Baltimore Oriole, and the Black Swan (which includes 5 paragraphs about the homosexuality of the feathered fellow).

Keep in mind, the purpose of these rankings by importance was to know which articles to put on the CD.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 24th March 2009, 8:03pm

[The Wales Hunter]

I find it hard to balance the importance scales with NPOV. In theory, isn't WP:NPOV meant to be one of the most important things going?

If the idea of Wikipedia is to hold the sum of all human knowledge, what does it matter how "important" said knowledge is?

Different people use encyclopaedias for different things. The importance scale is just another example of why Wikipedia should not be considered an encyclopaedia.

After all, Family Guy episode and professional wrestlers given more weight than things that actually mean something out of their fictional universe (sorry for my lack of decent language skills right now, I'm exhausted).

[EricBarbour]

Cue that legendary Orwellian quote from SlimVirgin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=185660976

It really doesn't matter when a dispute began. It now exists. I'm not suggesting that we write Sanger wasn't the co-founder. I'm suggesting we choose wording that avoids the issue entirely

As I keep saying: Shit flows downhill.

She would not have said that, if the emotional well-being of the
arrogant little toad named Wales was not of paramount importance.

Simply replace him with a more equable personality, and suddenly things would
start to improve. SV would either quit, or behave herself.


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 27th March 2009, 11:02pm