The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

19 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed
Rating  3
Peter Damian
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:28pm
Post #1


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:29pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nerd
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:44pm
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat 30th May 2009, 7:52pm
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:52pm
Post #3


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 3:44pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.


I don't think Peter intended to kill anyone, just cause the demise of a dysfunctional website. Even at that his language is conditional and he will probably be back to work "building the encyclopedia" in no time flat.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aeon
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:08pm
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed 23rd Jul 2008, 3:39am
Member No.: 7,214



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

For all your destructive designs, your userpage says you're "in retirement [–] until October 3 2009." (dash my own for obvious effect). Seriously PD, what the hell? I find your labelling of the community as "not normal" a bit ironic; I don't think a person who has retired and then returned and then bitterly left again saying "wah wah, I want to destroy Wikipedia!" and who is so obviously in a love-hate affair with Wikipedia can be called "normal" either. You can't even retire properly (..."until October 3 2009").

Get out of limbo land. Make up your mind to either stay or leave. The pitifulness of the situation is reaching sickening heights, and no-one's fooled by this latest proclamation of anti-Wikipedianism.

And before anyone points out to me that I'm making a nuisance of myself, this is part of my 35%.

This post has been edited by aeon: Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:26pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:11pm
Post #5


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 2:44pm) *
Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nerd
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm
Post #6


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat 30th May 2009, 7:52pm
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945



QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:11pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 2:44pm) *
Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.


QUOTE
They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.


That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:51pm
Post #7


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm) *

QUOTE
They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.


That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nerd
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:52pm
Post #8


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat 30th May 2009, 7:52pm
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm) *

QUOTE
They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.


That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?


Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:55pm
Post #9


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:52pm) *
Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.
It's true that, given its location in the sentence, "the place" could be taken to refer to the hospital. Contextually, I have a hard time seeing how one could not realize that he meant Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:34pm
Post #10


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


How Do You Stop The Pusher, Man?

Stop Buying, Dope!

Ja Ja boing.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:48pm
Post #11


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 6:52pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:21pm) *

QUOTE

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.


That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.


Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?


Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.


Always remember, "Nerd" is "Nerd" spelled forwards.

Ja Ja boing.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:52pm
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


They don't need to be moved.

With all the barking mad people safely locked inside the luny hospital named Wikipedia, we can simply start anew elsewhere.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wikiwhistle
post Wed 24th June 2009, 12:41am
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,928
Joined: Mon 26th Nov 2007, 2:17pm
Member No.: 3,953



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.


Eh? He said heal their lives- that they be given the mental health care they need. Unless you mean wikipedia is some people's lives (which could be right lol)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Wed 24th June 2009, 12:42am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Wed 24th June 2009, 1:25am
Post #14


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 24th June 2009, 2:08am
Post #15


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 3:11pm) *

QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 2:44pm) *
Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

Good, because you're already past the bounds of what is known or even reasonable. How do we know the requirements of simple user account registration (have a paid email account which you probably have anyway, and put in the gigantic mental effort to select a username and password) are such a horrible disincentive to drive-by editing? Particularly when they get you out of having to do the stupid CAPTCHA anytime you add a weblink, which you're often doing anyway if you're doing any editing of any value (which will include some weblinks surely in your cites). The time you lose creating a username is paid back almost immediately in CAPTCHAs not seen.

Same for the extra stuff you get like ability to send email to others and upload images. And if you want to edit protected Wikis (a larger and larger fraction) you have to register and wait out the confirmation time. Okay, so you have to wait 4 days-- again big deal. In 4 days, you're going to be the same place you are now, except 4 days older and without the ability to edit sprotected stuff if you didn't make the necessary application 4 days ago. This is not NOT a good argument. It's been made by the WMF for years and there's NOTHING logical behind it. If you ask them, their evidence consists of some francophone fr.wikis where the IP vandalism doesn't remotely resemble en.wiki's, which find that most of the good editing (for a very small group of editors with very few edits) is done by IPs. In France and Belgium. So what? Most of the IP-vandalism done here, isn't done by ANYBODY over there, because they aren't big vandals even when they ARE IP-users. What does that tell you?

blink.gif Nothing! It tells you that, for over here, you don't know. Which, as Socrates reminds us, is sometimes a good place to start.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Wed 24th June 2009, 2:14am
Post #16


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 5:28pm) *
It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.


I feel the same way about Scotland. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
victim of censorship
post Wed 24th June 2009, 2:44am
Post #17


Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs.
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,148
Joined: Tue 6th Jan 2009, 8:33am
From: The SOCK HOP
Member No.: 9,640



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:28pm) *

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.


AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Wikipedia should be closed down, the Domain sold, the data base purged and the servers sold and monies realized, be given to a worth charity.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Wed 24th June 2009, 3:35am
Post #18


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 4:28pm) *
I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

It probably depends on whether they're to be treated as addicts, criminals, cult-brainwashing victims, abuse victims, or ordinary lunatics. Being a charitable sort myself, I'd prefer to think of them as victims of some sort or other, but of course that's hard cheese on the people they've victimized. From a psychological perspective I'd say "cult-brainwashing victims" is the closest to what the really hardcore ones are, but that's a small minority. Another possibility is to create a whole new category for them, but then someone would have to come up with a name for the category, and "Wikipediots" is too silly-sounding to bring in any serious public-health money.

Anyhoo, this is all theoretical, right?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Wed 24th June 2009, 3:42am
Post #19


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:44pm) *
AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.
Just like canker sores!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 24th June 2009, 3:52am
Post #20


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Nerd @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 4:44pm) *
Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.
If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

19 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 10 14, 8:28am