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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> More Reddit WP-suckery
EricBarbour
post Sun 8th January 2012, 10:21pm
Post #1


blah
*********

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



This post speaks volumes.

Just because WP has a (VERY rarely used, much less acknowledged) template for religious articles requiring secondary sources, we're supposed to have "respect" for it.

Read the comment thread, if you have the stomach.

At least some of them have sense:
QUOTE
There are extremely smart ways to use wikipedia, and extremely dumb ways. People over thirty who began to learn the internet when they has already learned common sense know how to use wikipedia, because they read everything with a discerning and critical eye (or at least, they should be). Kids these days read what the internet tells them and believe each word, because they grew up with the internet as sourced content, not bullshit someone shat out of their ass. I'm in academia, and we frequently discuss whether wikipedia is good or bad as a source. It can be great. Just be discerning, critical, and check the fucking sources. If it sounds like crap, it probably is. (Side note: I know there are smart kids and young 20-somethings. There are exceptions to every rule.)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 13th January 2012, 8:43pm
Post #2


blah
*********

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

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Here's a new Reddit thread, about the impending SOPA shutdown.
Links to this Time magazine blog article.

QUOTE
Reddit has announced that it will go dark for 12 hours to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said that he hopes to coordinate with the site so that Wikipedia does the same.

There's that "founder" shit again.

QUOTE
Wales writes, “It would be great if we could act quickly to coordinate with Reddit,” though he adds that the community needs a “thumbs up/thumbs down vote” on whether to participate, and “we don’t have the luxury of time that we usually have, in terms of negotiating with each other for weeks about what’s exactly the best possible thing to do.” I suspect the ratio of those in favor of a blackout to those opposed would be greater for a more activist site like Reddit than one that’s more mainstream (and let’s be honest, passive) like Wikipedia.

Heh heh heh.

QUOTE
Let Wikipedia close for the day and generate headlines, while others like Google and Facebook pursue alternative forms of protest that engage their respective audiences. In the end, the more people paying attention, the better.

More of you should be pissed off, that WP can "generate headlines" just by shutting off server access for a few hours. Stupid as it might be, no matter the purpose (and I think protesting SOPA is a very legitimate reason to protest).

And as a commenter says:
QUOTE
There is only one site that you really need to do this: Facebook. If they shut down for even two hours, the internet would scream and cry and you'd have everyone's attention. Sadly, this will never happen, but a man can dream...

Yep, Wikipedia really ISN'T all that "important".

This was on the Reddit thread:
QUOTE
[–]therealprotonk 31 points 8 hours ago

Apologies for the top comment hijacking, but anyone with a wikipedia account should go to Wikipedia:SOPA Initiative and leave a comment there. Wikipedians are famously xenophobic--they couldn't care less what people on reddit say about them or their intent. It is discussion on Wikipedia which will sway the decision one way or another.

From my experience I can predict that the most likely outcome if pressure is not placed on them will be delay and bureaucratic nonsense until the time for action has passed. A small number of vocal opponents can stop consensus from emerging almost indefinitely.

[–]Counterman 7 points 7 hours ago

A small number of vocal opponents can stop consensus from emerging almost indefinitely.

Yeah, and there are examples from wikipedia's history that political actors have realized this, realized how important wikipedia actually is, and got their own people into the system. Wikipedia would feel right at home if you're used to sleazy politics.

[–]therealprotonk 2 points 7 hours ago

In this case the vocal opponents are either long term wikipedians (like myself but on the other side) or long term agent provocateurs like Seth Finkelstein, a "journalist" who spends most of his time in wikipedia stirring up shit. I don't think any political actors on the side of sopa understand or could competently navigate the discussion processes around this decision.


Note the "Wikipedians are famously xenophobic" comment. From Protonk, a famously xenophobic Wikipedia administrator.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 13th January 2012, 8:50pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 23rd 8 14, 5:20pm