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 « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed
Rating  3
Ahypori
post Mon 29th June 2009, 2:21am
Post #141


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue 17th Mar 2009, 5:25am
Member No.: 10,841



QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:19pm) *

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif

I was surprised by that, actually.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Mon 29th June 2009, 2:30am
Post #142


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(aeon @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:23am) *
It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat ...
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:37pm) *
You own a goat? wtf.gif

Well, just keep David Shankbone away from it ... that is all I say. Otherwise, indecent photographs of it will only end up on the Pee-dia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 29th June 2009, 5:24am
Post #143


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



QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:03pm) *

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?


That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aeon
post Mon 29th June 2009, 6:29am
Post #144


Member
***

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



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 29th June 2009, 5:24am) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:03pm) *

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?


That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

What a load of nonsense.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 29th June 2009, 6:39am
Post #145


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(aeon @ Mon 29th June 2009, 1:29am) *
What a load of nonsense.

You have to define what the word "work" means before you can call it "nonsense," don't you? If his goal is simply to object for the sake of it, so as to retain his integrity and all that sort of thing, then what's the problem?

If you have a better idea for making the RfA process grind to a halt, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Who knows, maybe we'd all even join in! smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:34am
Post #146


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



The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:40am
Post #147


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 @ Mon 29th June 2009, 2:34am) *

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

It may be somewhat ironic, but IMO it would only be "incredible" if those same people were protesting against the right of established editors to prevent other established editors from being elected to the group of established editors.

I know, it's a silly thing to quibble over... rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:58am
Post #148


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

They could ask IP address 97.106.52.36 (T-C-L-K-R-D) why it was sooooo damned important
to tell the world that Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban......thus endangering his life......

That IP editor is a real prick, judging from the history. Charming person -- obsessed with
political hostages, FPS games, and The Godfather.

(just occurred to me......I can't think of a better way to ruin Wikipedia's golden "reputation" than
if it got someone killed. That occurrence is coming.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 29th June 2009, 8:10am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Mon 29th June 2009, 11:08am
Post #149


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:22pm) *

QUOTE(aeon @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:54pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:39pm) *

QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 12:47pm) *

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"


I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.


I really think he is serious you know. blink.gif


What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.


I think its because aeon just isn't very bright. And has never read 1984
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 29th June 2009, 11:48am
Post #150


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(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 2:43pm) *

QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:19pm) *

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif


Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

Not just you. ermm.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex
post Mon 29th June 2009, 12:20pm
Post #151


Back from the dead
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined: Wed 24th Jan 2007, 4:39pm
Member No.: 867

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 28th June 2009, 8:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 10:29am) *
We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.
Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?


Er... I do?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 29th June 2009, 2:31pm
Post #152


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(The Joy @ Sun 28th June 2009, 5:19pm) *

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! ohmy.gif


I really cannot believe how ridiculously silly that RfA discussion has become. When brain-limited characters like EVula, J.delanoy, AllStarEcho and Giants27 flare their nostrils and flex their muscles in outrage, it is impossible not to break out in giggles. I did like Xeno throwing in a reference to Nietzsche -- though Pastor Theo referring to Pinky and the Brain might be closer to the mark in regard to the gist of the discussion. Giants27 gets an extra star for trying to dig up dirt on Peter, and Wehwalt seems to have taken the Wiki title for being a lawyer who knows how to write cogently and comically (sorry, Brad, you're all washed up!).

Nonetheless, this whole thing has been very entertaining. Kudo, Peter, for giving me a good horse laugh! laugh.gif

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 29th June 2009, 5:51pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Mon 29th June 2009, 4:15pm
Post #153


Senior Member
****

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



QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 1:47pm) *

QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Fri 26th June 2009, 8:51pm) *

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.


That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.


The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Mon 29th June 2009, 5:22pm
Post #154


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 1:31am
Member No.: 2,132



QUOTE(JohnA @ Sun 28th June 2009, 11:47am) *

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.


Any by "publish" you mean simply "make available to the public"?

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Mon 29th June 2009, 5:43pm
Post #155


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

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



QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:22pm) *
Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.
Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Mon 29th June 2009, 5:52pm
Post #156


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(Kelly Martin @ Mon 29th June 2009, 1:43pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:22pm) *
Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.
Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.


A stable version? Ah, there would still be plenty of horse shit to shovel. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Mon 29th June 2009, 5:57pm
Post #157


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 29th June 2009, 5:43pm) *

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

Well here's the scoop:
QUOTE(Jimbeaux)

I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible. I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good start. [...] I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested "before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


August 26–28 btw. Has anyone asked Brion yet what's the hold-up?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:19pm
Post #158


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



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 29th June 2009, 3:58am) *

You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.


How, exactly, is that "extremely embarrassing" to Wikipedia? What it shows is that an information collection and dissemination medium that isn't run by a "good ol' boys' club" like the mainstream media (and thus not as easy to get to conform to "gentleman's agreements" to withhold information) is harder to keep censored; the "God King" Jimbo just barely managed to keep a lid on it, but that might eventually become impossible as he declines in community power. While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:47pm
Post #159


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Mon 29th June 2009, 12:19pm) *
While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

In a general sense, perhaps. However, I'd still like to ask you, as I asked Hipocrite in
that other thread: are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?
And are you willing to speak to the family when it does happen?

This clash comes about because of that whole demented "information wants to be free"
concept that Web 2.0 and "digerati" types are always pushing, as if it were a law of
physics or something.

Information doesn't want anything, PEOPLE want something.

The only reason websites are killing newspapers and magazines, and Wikipedia is killing
encyclopedias, is because PEOPLE WANT FREE INFORMATION. And if you have total
la-la freedom on your information site, the result is very often defamation, personal
attacks, misinformation and propaganda, etc.

(In fact, allowing free editing of an information source would seem to INVITE
misinformation and propaganda.) And if someone dies as a result of said "free"
information, who is responsible? A teenager in his Florida bedroom, editing
Wikipedia while watching net-porn he scored at no cost, with his free hand shoved
down his boxer shorts? Is HE willing to apologize to the family of the deceased?

Those are damn difficult questions. What gets me, is that Jimbo did something
responsible in the case of Rohde. But his "encyclopedia" is being assembled by
random people, who may or may not be "responsible".

I still think that Times article is an embarrassment--because it shows Jimbo, being
a hypocrite and ignoring the "info wants to be free" cant that he pushed, and that
so many of his Wiki-gnomes take very seriously.

Jimbo helped create that atmosphere, and now he's making exceptions to the exception-less "rule".
And of course, his oft-deranged editor pool is playing Super Mario with people's lives.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 29th June 2009, 8:01pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Mon 29th June 2009, 7:53pm
Post #160


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

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



Wikipedia appears to have done the right thing here, but it's unlikely that they'll generalize from the experience. Jimbo did this because someone schmoozed him into it; it wasn't a case of them realizing ab initio that it was the right thing to do. Not everyone with a BLP can successfully schmooze Jimbo into doing the right thing, and in any case schmoozing the God-King doesn't scale.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

19 Pages V « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
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: 18th 12 14, 4:22pm