This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 7th February 2012, 7:08pm)
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 7th February 2012, 7:01pm)
I don't like the Randy in Boise essay because it seems to justify cabal behavior. Of course, every policy gets gamed. And beyond that, I don't see why it is necessary to make fun of Boise.
As much as I like Giano, he has a touch of the anti-American bug, in that smug way Europeans who feel themselves superior do.
Everything considered I agree it is so unfair.
Ha! that's really good. Here's the top rated comment'
"When I think of all the America war veterans buried throughout Europe who gave there lives to save your sorry asses from the Germans twice and kept the Soviets from stomping your asses, Maybe we are stupid."
Annnnd, one back at ya;
This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Tue 7th February 2012, 8:20pm
That's the kind of comment that got her a short-block by Jimbo, about which she made a huge fuss. Bishonen is a diva, so this is is truly funny.
McBride deserved it, though. This is the real Wikipedia, folks, these are the highly respected users, unmasked. No gravitas. The "collaborative community?"
Nobody putting Wikipedia together knew how to build genuine community. Instead, it was all opportunistic, shallow connections, part of this is "anonymous editing."
Nothing wrong with allowing anonymous editing, per se, but a very serious problem to vest authority and control in anonymous users. It defeats the normal social restraints that keep people within boundaries, and doesn't allow the high-bandwidth communication that is possible in person, and to some extent with voice.
Not the first time, of course, and I will open a book on when he is back. But, this seems a little, a trifle bit more serious than the others.
The points he makes are all perfectly valid, of course.
I like what he said about govcom:
Successive Arbcoms have become more and more lack lustre, and the acceptance of the case against Malleus Fatuorum ,in particular the amount and length of permitted spite (evidence - I believe it was called) that was posted against him, is just one more example of the self-satisfied, smug, puritan lynch mob that's allowed and encouraged to rule here. For that the Arbcom, and editors who posted such lengthy vitriol, should be hanging their heads in shame.