Squeak box now INdef, Or why should JIMMY and SUZZIE be only ones getting paid? Options Rating

[victim of censorship]

Well well, looks like one of my favorites, SqueakBox (T-C-L-K-R-D) had a run in to the wild and wacky wood chipper of justice.

Or, is it only JIMMY and Sue Gardner is allowed to make money on the wiki.


Why should Sue Gardner make money on Wiki?

[taiwopanfob]

Well well, looks like one of my favorites, SqueakBox (T-C-L-K-R-D) had a run in to the wild and wacky wood chipper of justice.

Or, is it only JIMMY and Sue Gardner is allowed to make money on the wiki.


Why should Sue Gardner make money on Wiki?

Looks like he was blocked for failure to participate in drama.

If anyone needs proof that the Wikipediots, especially the administrators, are just in it for the power-trips, you need only peruse the above ANI discussion. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405185744

Remember, this dickwad had to sit down and think up all of that and then type it in, and that these are conditions for remaining a volunteer (from their perspective). Did he miss anything, he asks? Well, how about publishing copies of his income tax filing on his user-page, the WikiGPS clamped to his ankle until death, a DNA sample of himself and any living relatives, and SqueakBox shall utter signed permission that the WMF, or it's assigned agents, can perform any number of random searches of his person and domicile, at any time and without warning, as well as carry out security background checks on him for a period not less than 10 years.

Do the dance, Squeakbox, do the dance.

My advice to SqueakBox: call up ArbCom, Cc: TenOfAllTrades and the other shitheads at that ANI discussion, and say "Y'all can go fuck yourselves. Please make this block immutably permanent. Thanks a bunch, suckazz!" Almost anything else is an insult to not only your dignity, but the entire concept of dignity itself.

[Infomercial]

Remember, this dickwad had to sit down and think up all of that and then type it in, and that these are conditions for remaining a volunteer (from their perspective). Did he miss anything, he asks? Well, how about publishing copies of his income tax filing on his user-page, the WikiGPS clamped to his ankle until death, a DNA sample of himself and any living relatives, and SqueakBox shall utter signed permission that the WMF, or it's assigned agents, can perform any number of random searches of his person and domicile, at any time and without warning, as well as carry out security background checks on him for a period not less than 10 years.

Do the dance, Squeakbox, do the dance.

That's just plain unreasonable.

It should be at least 15 years.

This post has been edited by Infomercial: Sun 2nd January 2011, 6:24pm

[thekohser]

Mods, how about moving this thread to this one?

[Milton Roe]

Looks like he was blocked for failure to participate in drama.

Considering Squeak's undoubtedly massive ganja intake, I bet it's hard for him to get really angry and excited about anything.

And the irony is that it's probably also about that hard for him to complete and get PAID for anything. Which makes all this that much weirder.

Hope you're all enjoying yourselves with this, ANI dudes and dudettes. zOMG, the SqBox is one toke over the line.

[EricBarbour]

Please note DGG's smug comment:

COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about.

Then why, pray tell, does your fucked-up "community" have a rule against it?

[thekohser]

Please note DGG's smug comment:

COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about.

Then why, pray tell, does your fucked-up "community" have a rule against it?

The rule actually states...

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

So, you just need to make sure that your advancement of outside interests consumes only 49% of your intentions, while advancing the aims of Wikipedia consumes 51% of your motives.

That's what I do, and therefore none of my paid editing is ever in violation of WP:COI policy.



This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 3rd January 2011, 2:31am

[Milton Roe]

The rule actually states...

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

So, you just need to make sure that your advancement of outside interests consumes only 49% of your intentions, while advancing the aims of Wikipedia consumes 51% of your motives.

That's what I do, and therefore none of my paid editing is ever in violation of WP:COI policy.

Still not easy. What ARE the aims of Wikipedia, other than getting Sue a six figure salary, and Jimbo 4 figure speaking fees?

Jimbo said it was going to be getting a summary of all human knowledge into the hands of everybody alive for free, but there's something wrong with that. Discounting plagiarism, summarizing technical knowledge for WP takes expertise, and WP has no way of paying for, or even evaluating expertise. So it's sort of in a bind. An academia-killing distilliation of knowledge is sort of like a Google-killing search application. Who (or WHAT) is going to do the job for you? At least they pay academics SOMETHING.

The Wikipedia model sort of reminds me of the business model of the underwear gnomes on South Park. The ones that steal dirty underwear that they find lying around. Their business plan ends with "MASSIVE PROFIT," but is missing some steps between.

[Somey]

Mods, how about moving this thread to this one?

Hmm, let me think about that. I realize he lives in Central America and it probably doesn't matter so much there, but if we're going to be referring to his alleged use of a substance that's illegal to possess in the US without a prescription (even if the laws mandating this are clearly in need of reform/repeal), I'd probably rather we kept this bit in a forum that's not visible to Google.

However, I would certainly encourage folks to post any insights they might have about the more businessy aspects of this situation to the other thread.

[EricBarbour]

So, you just need to make sure that your advancement of outside interests consumes only 49% of your intentions, while advancing the aims of Wikipedia consumes 51% of your motives.
That's what I do, and therefore none of my paid editing is ever in violation of WP:COI policy.

[Silver seren]

That discussion really did get out of control quickly, didn't it? I, personally, do not consider paid editing to be a bad thing if it is done properly. Admittedly...the articles that Squeak box made were horrible. I mean...they were really, really bad. So, the first thing the companies should do is get a better writer to represent then. Or go to Wikipedia Review, right Kohser?

The one thing that I do believe is a major issue is the fact that Squeak box was soliciting the creation of fake sources on external sites, so that he could use them as references. That's a more major issue than anything else he did.

[Tarc]

Hmm, where has Squeaky's name come up before? Wasn't he one of the fevered Wiki-proponents of keeping all mentions of Jimbo as "Wikipedia founder" as opposed to "co-founder" ?

[melloden]

So, you just need to make sure that your advancement of outside interests consumes only 49% of your intentions, while advancing the aims of Wikipedia consumes 51% of your motives.
That's what I do, and therefore none of my paid editing is ever in violation of WP:COI policy.

Does making money really mean less to you than increasing the sum of human knowledge blah blah blah? I don't see the point of the COI policy, just let people spam their shit and its not like Wikipedia's any worse off.

[DollyD]

Hmm, where has Squeaky's name come up before? Wasn't he one of the fevered Wiki-proponents of keeping all mentions of Jimbo as "Wikipedia founder" as opposed to "co-founder" ?

Wasn't that QuackGuru (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

[Tarc]

Hmm, where has Squeaky's name come up before? Wasn't he one of the fevered Wiki-proponents of keeping all mentions of Jimbo as "Wikipedia founder" as opposed to "co-founder" ?

Wasn't that QuackGuru (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Quackguru was pro "co-"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wa...founder_dispute

Squeaky was anti "co-"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wa...ve_13#Sanger.3F

[DollyD]

Hmm, where has Squeaky's name come up before? Wasn't he one of the fevered Wiki-proponents of keeping all mentions of Jimbo as "Wikipedia founder" as opposed to "co-founder" ?

Wasn't that QuackGuru (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Quackguru was pro "co-"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wa...founder_dispute

Squeaky was anti "co-"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wa...ve_13#Sanger.3F

Aha! Thanks.

[thekohser]

Squeaker is even willing to agree to "parole terms" to get out of WikiJail.

What a comical system of justice surrounds paid editing.