Anne Rice, another idiot WMF donor Options

[thekohser]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

[GlassBeadGame]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

It is a natural pairing. Wikipedia, like an Anne Rice character, sucks.

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, Now, Bee Noyes, Alfred. The casual up-looker in Wikipedia has no way of knowing how many bodies get ground up to make its Soyled Grunge.

Jon

[Seurat]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

[thekohser]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

My wife brought it to my attention (I don't "friend" Anne Rice), asked me if I wanted to respond on her behalf, she reviewed what I wrote, and she clicked the "Share" button. Is there a Facebook Terms of Service item, or perhaps a federal "identity theft" law that I've violated, Seurat?

[Seurat]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

My wife brought it to my attention (I don't "friend" Anne Rice), asked me if I wanted to respond on her behalf, she reviewed what I wrote, and she clicked the "Share" button. Is there a Facebook Terms of Service item, or perhaps a federal "identity theft" law that I've violated, Seurat?

No, just a "good taste" law.

[Eva Destruction]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

My wife brought it to my attention (I don't "friend" Anne Rice), asked me if I wanted to respond on her behalf, she reviewed what I wrote, and she clicked the "Share" button. Is there a Facebook Terms of Service item, or perhaps a federal "identity theft" law that I've violated, Seurat?

No, just a "good taste" law.

If you want to be really anal about it, theoretically you're violating §§3.5 and 4.8 of their TOS ("You will not … access an account belonging to someone else" and "You will not … let anyone else access your account"). I somehow can't imagine it being enforced.

[thekohser]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

My wife brought it to my attention (I don't "friend" Anne Rice), asked me if I wanted to respond on her behalf, she reviewed what I wrote, and she clicked the "Share" button. Is there a Facebook Terms of Service item, or perhaps a federal "identity theft" law that I've violated, Seurat?

No, just a "good taste" law.

If you want to be really anal about it, theoretically you're violating §§3.5 and 4.8 of their TOS ("You will not … access an account belonging to someone else" and "You will not … let anyone else access your account"). I somehow can't imagine it being enforced.

Depends what the definition of "access" is. You can't possibly think that a spouse asking her partner to dictate a note via Facebook is somehow equivalent to "account access".

[Zoloft]

This really captures the idiocy of Anne Rice and most of her fans.

Shouldn't you use your own account to post that stuff, instead of misrepresenting yourself as (your wife?) someone else?

My wife brought it to my attention (I don't "friend" Anne Rice), asked me if I wanted to respond on her behalf, she reviewed what I wrote, and she clicked the "Share" button. Is there a Facebook Terms of Service item, or perhaps a federal "identity theft" law that I've violated, Seurat?

No, just a "good taste" law.

If you want to be really anal about it, theoretically you're violating §§3.5 and 4.8 of their TOS ("You will not … access an account belonging to someone else" and "You will not … let anyone else access your account"). I somehow can't imagine it being enforced.

Depends what the definition of "access" is. You can't possibly think that a spouse asking her partner to dictate a note via Facebook is somehow equivalent to "account access".

I don't think anyone at FaceBook will lose sleep over it. They're too busy diving into their huge vault of money a la Scrooge McDuck.

[Text]

If you want to be really anal about it, theoretically you're violating §§3.5 and 4.8 of their TOS ("You will not … access an account belonging to someone else" and "You will not … let anyone else access your account"). I somehow can't imagine it being enforced.

"When the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't hurt"!

[Lar]

I see your point, Greg, she's not thinking about the consequences of her actions... But while that's true, it just seems rather... petty... to take FB screenshots and paste them around so you can make fun of her.

Maybe it's me, I dunno.

[thekohser]

...so you can make fun of her.

Actually, I did this so that others might be able to make fun of her.

[Jon Awbrey]

… so you can make fun of her.

Actually, I did this so that others might be able to make fun of her.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to make fun of Li'l' Ol' Ladies (LOLs) who fall for the scams of con artists. It merely reflects our failure to make the scams of con artists clear enough and widely understood enough that even Li'l' Ol' Ladies can see them for what they are.

Jon

[thekohser]

… so you can make fun of her.

Actually, I did this so that others might be able to make fun of her.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to make fun of Li'l' Ol' Ladies (LOLs) who fall for the scams of con artists. It merely reflects our failure to make the scams of con artists clear enough and widely understood enough that even Li'l' Ol' Ladies can see them for what they are.

Jon

I don't know how much more clear you can be than telling the person directly that the con artist is only spending 41 cents of each tax-exempt dollar on charitable program expenses, and that it's earning only 1 star out of four in organizational efficiency. She responded that she still feels good about paying someone for all the times she uses the site that's already paid for about 4 times over.

I'm having a hard time understanding why I should be pitying this millionaire.

[Zoloft]

There are plenty of good reasons to make fun of Anne Rice, just add this one to the pile.

[Tarc]

There are plenty of good reasons to make fun of Anne Rice, just add this one to the pile.

I liked her better when she was dark and emo/gothy, all this "Christ is awesome but the church sucks balls" has led to some pretty shitty books the last few years.

[Peter Damian]

… so you can make fun of her.

Actually, I did this so that others might be able to make fun of her.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to make fun of Li'l' Ol' Ladies (LOLs) who fall for the scams of con artists. It merely reflects our failure to make the scams of con artists clear enough and widely understood enough that even Li'l' Ol' Ladies can see them for what they are.

Jon

I don't know how much more clear you can be than telling the person directly that the con artist is only spending 41 cents of each tax-exempt dollar on charitable program expenses, and that it's earning only 1 star out of four in organizational efficiency. She responded that she still feels good about paying someone for all the times she uses the site that's already paid for about 4 times over.

I'm having a hard time understanding why I should be pitying this millionaire.

Perhaps the argument should go like this:

Nearly all the people you would like to reward have left in disgust.
So your money is not going to help them at all.
None of the money that is now given to the 'project' goes to improve the quality or content of the encyclopedia.
It goes on (a) salaries for people who do not contribute to the content at all (b) disbursements for people who want to set up a 'Wikipedia movement' whose goals are obscure and undefined, and which resembles a cult.
Would you contribute to Scientology?

[Somey]

I'm having a hard time understanding why I should be pitying this millionaire.

You shouldn't be - the fact that some of us would support Anne Rice's desire to opt out of having a Wikipedia biography doesn't mean she should be immune from criticism, or even ridicule if you genuinely believe that her novels are terrible, as I do.

At the same time, she's clearly a case of someone who wouldn't be permitted to opt out under any "reasonable" opt-out exceptions compromise (such as the one Durova used to call "dead tree"). Obviously she wouldn't want to opt out, because she clearly digs Wikipedia for some strange reason. But I digress...

The point here is that if a genuinely famous person comes forward and says something positive about Wikipedia that's also ignorant, there's no reason to be namby-pamby about reacting to it. If she wasn't genuinely famous (which I define as several steps beyond what you find in WP:NOTABILITY), I probably wouldn't be saying that... I just wonder, in the unlikely event that a genuinely famous person announced that The Wikipedia Review was his or her favorite website, how would the WP'ers react to that?

[Zoloft]

<snippity doo-dah>
I just wonder, in the unlikely event that a genuinely famous person announced that The Wikipedia Review was his or her favorite website, how would the WP'ers react to that?

With our luck, it would be Roman Polanski, and several members would die of aneurysms.