New York Times outs Newyorkbrad Options

[victim of censorship]

One of the things Wikipedia should have done from the get-go is adopt the Original Wiki's dictum of RealNamesPlease.

There's a few reasons that people adopt pseudonyms in the Wikipedia sphere of influence), it seems: to disassociate themselves from their work (cowardly, in my opinion, and unacceptable for a reference work), to intentionally deceive (i.e. sockpuppetry), and to avoid intrusion into their personal lives (i.e. "harassment" or "stalking," though the terms have been so thoroughly warped in Wikipedia culture that I hesitate to use them).

That last one - guarding one's personal life from Wikipedia-related intrusion - is the trickiest, since it can affect even the best and most valuable users, and it's really a problem related to the Internet as a whole. A breed of sociopaths loves to use the relative anonymity and/or the long physical distance in location and lack of cohesively defined laws that the Internet provides; given Wikipedia's enormous prominence and huge userbase, it happens to see a lot of these people. Aside from going anonymous oneself, there's really no way to deal with these assholes, which most prominent people in power on Wikipedia have done; and its rigor and accountability have suffered as a result.

That's why I've come to regard Wikipedia as a failed experiment. If you allow people to contribute anonymously by default, you're inevitably going to rope in the bottom-feeders of the Internet, and they're going to cause trouble for those who are willing to identify themselves; and there's no way you will be able to build a purportedly accurate reference work without accountability.

I think Wikipeida should be closed down, due the blight it brings on the internet.

[Viridae]

One of the things Wikipedia should have done from the get-go is adopt the Original Wiki's dictum of RealNamesPlease.

There's a few reasons that people adopt pseudonyms in the Wikipedia sphere of influence), it seems: to disassociate themselves from their work (cowardly, in my opinion, and unacceptable for a reference work), to intentionally deceive (i.e. sockpuppetry), and to avoid intrusion into their personal lives (i.e. "harassment" or "stalking," though the terms have been so thoroughly warped in Wikipedia culture that I hesitate to use them).

That last one - guarding one's personal life from Wikipedia-related intrusion - is the trickiest, since it can affect even the best and most valuable users, and it's really a problem related to the Internet as a whole. A breed of sociopaths loves to use the relative anonymity and/or the long physical distance in location and lack of cohesively defined laws that the Internet provides; given Wikipedia's enormous prominence and huge userbase, it happens to see a lot of these people. Aside from going anonymous oneself, there's really no way to deal with these assholes, which most prominent people in power on Wikipedia have done; and its rigor and accountability have suffered as a result.

That's why I've come to regard Wikipedia as a failed experiment. If you allow people to contribute anonymously by default, you're inevitably going to rope in the bottom-feeders of the Internet, and they're going to cause trouble for those who are willing to identify themselves; and there's no way you will be able to build a purportedly accurate reference work without accountability.

I think Wikipeida should be closed down, due the blight it brings on the internet.

You have made that abundantly clear.

[MZMcBride]

I think Wikipeida should be closed down, due the blight it brings on the internet.

You should get that put on T-shirts. Typo and all.

[Somey]

You should get that put on T-shirts. Typo and all.

Y'know, if we wanted to, we could use the board's BadWords Filter™ feature to auto-correct that misspelling whenever anyone tries to enter it. But we've realized that without his invariable use of that misspelling, Mr. VoC's posts would lose much of their inherent charm and wholesome appeal.

He does have a point, too, of course...

[Viridae]

You should get that put on T-shirts. Typo and all.

Y'know, if we wanted to, we could use the board's BadWords Filter™ feature to auto-correct that misspelling whenever anyone tries to enter it. But we've realized that without his invariable use of that misspelling, Mr. VoC's posts would lose much of their inherent charm and wholesome appeal.

Charm not-so-much. Amusement in spades though.

[Nerd]

You should get that put on T-shirts. Typo and all.

Y'know, if we wanted to, we could use the board's BadWords Filter™ feature to auto-correct that misspelling whenever anyone tries to enter it. But we've realized that without his invariable use of that misspelling, Mr. VoC's posts would lose much of their inherent charm and wholesome appeal.

He does have a point, too, of course...

Charm? Appeal? Point? I see none of that.

[A Horse With No Name]

Say, where is Mr. Matetsky? I would think the guest of honor would have a few pithy words to add to this tribute to being the face of Wikipedia ( and what a face: http://www.ganferandshore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp -- I am surprised Shankbone isn't all over him...with his camera, of course!)

Yoo-hoo, Mr. Matetsky! Where are you?

[Moulton]

I've come to regard Wikipedia as a failed experiment. If you allow people to contribute anonymously by default, you're inevitably going to rope in the bottom-feeders of the Internet, and they're going to cause trouble for those who are willing to identify themselves; and there's no way you will be able to build a purportedly accurate reference work without accountability.

Amen and amen.