Drinking Jimmy's Kool-Aid Options Rating

This insane statement was made by Eloquence as he voted to "keep" on my AfD page on April 6:

"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable."

Eloquence is Erik Moeller, who lives in Berlin. His girlfriend is Angela Beesley, who is a trustee of Wikimedia Foundation, and co-founder and vice-president of Wikia, Inc.

Erik's statement sums up everything that is wrong with Wikipedia.

Who appointed Wikipedia to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge?

Who gave Wikipedia the right to disregard the honest, and sometimes better-informed opinions of those who find Wikipedia intolerable? Particularly in the case of biographies of living persons, where the person objects to the biography, who gave Wikipedia the right to allow self-anointed teenagers to override the wishes of the subject of the article?

If anything or anyone claims a corner on the "sum of all human knowledge," or even claims to be headed in that direction, isn't this closer to fascism than democracy? It puts them in a position to decree that certain inconvenient items belong in the memory hole of history, and replaced with the Approved Wikipedia Version of history and knowledge.

For example, what would it take for me to get Wikipedia to describe me as an "accountability activist" instead of a "privacy activist"? (I tried, and they reverted everything I did. They said there was no such thing as an "accountability activist.")

If I'm a "privacy activist," how come I track all those names in NameBase (going on 24 years now)? Why is NameBase barely mentioned on Wikipedia? It's easy to figure out: Describing me as a "privacy activist" supports the mission of Wikipedia much better than describing me as an "accountability activist." It's more convenient for Wikipedia to see things this way, because it sanctions Wikipedia's own culture of anonymity.

There's a huge problem with a lot of administrators and editors at Wikipedia. But the problems start right at the top, with Jimmy and his acolytes.

This insane statement was made by Eloquence as he voted to "keep" on my AfD page on April 6:

"[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable."

Wikipedians seem to feel they're a law unto themselves, not accountable to anyone outside their own community.

Eloquence is Erik Moeller, who lives in Berlin. His girlfriend is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Beesley][u]Angela Beesley

Tut tut, Daniel, your research is on the blink. Erik and Angela are, according to Wikipedia user pages, no longer it.

What, all those mirrors and scrapes of Erik's user page and Angela's user page are wrong? I've seen each refer to the other as boyfriend/girlfriend.

Someone ought to do something about all those mirrors and scrapers!

They were a couple, and I am sure that Eloquence is still up there with power. They all sleep with each other anyway. Except of course for David Gerard and Snowspinner, and we've already discussed reasons why they aren't in the mix in that respect.

The phrase "sum of human knowledge" originates somewhere else:



What exactly this phrase encompasses is a matter of defining the term "knowledge"; in the context of Wikipedia, it certainly includes the key criterion of verifiability, which implicitly leads to some standards of relevance. How high these standards are is a matter of internal debate between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", however, the case of Mr. Brandt is not even seriously debated here as he very obviously meets all reasonable criteria of notability that can be established. Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

There are teenagers among Wikipedia's editors; I personally do not discredit a user's opinion based on their age and find such behavior in humans generally appalling. If someone makes a well-informed comment or observation, they deserve to be listened to no matter what their age or life experience. Similarly, if someone tends to repeat the same line of argument over and over again without making any effort to understand the other side, they deserve to be eventually ignored, even if they happen to be an adult with a lot of life experience. Mr. Brandt tends to fall into the latter category.

Erik

however, the case of Mr. Brandt is not even seriously debated here as he very obviously meets all reasonable criteria of notability that can be established. Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

Why is he notable? He hasn't done anything particularly exciting. There isn't an article about him in Britannica, in World Book, or anywhere else. He's not famous. He doesn't do TV interviews, he isn't a celebrity, he hasn't published any novels, etc. He is just someone who a lot of people don't like.

You can say that he is notable enough for Wikipedia, and that much is debatable. Is he really? Well yes, when you have an article on someone like the usenet troll that Donny was talking about, Archimedes Plutonium (not his real name) then by comparison Daniel Brandt is positively bubbling with fame.

The phrase "sum of human knowledge" originates somewhere else:



What exactly this phrase encompasses is a matter of defining the term "knowledge"; in the context of Wikipedia, it certainly includes the key criterion of verifiability, which implicitly leads to some standards of relevance. How high these standards are is a matter of internal debate between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", however, the case of Mr. Brandt is not even seriously debated here as he very obviously meets all reasonable criteria of notability that can be established. Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

There are teenagers among Wikipedia's editors; I personally do not discredit a user's opinion based on their age and find such behavior in humans generally appalling. If someone makes a well-informed comment or observation, they deserve to be listened to no matter what their age or life experience. Similarly, if someone tends to repeat the same line of argument over and over again without making any effort to understand the other side, they deserve to be eventually ignored, even if they happen to be an adult with a lot of life experience. Mr. Brandt tends to fall into the latter category.

Erik

So how come it says that he has 0 posts?

Has some(y)body been oeuvreslighting him?

Jonny

The phrase "sum of human knowledge" originates somewhere else:



What exactly this phrase encompasses is a matter of defining the term "knowledge"; in the context of Wikipedia, it certainly includes the key criterion of verifiability, which implicitly leads to some standards of relevance. How high these standards are is a matter of internal debate between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", however, the case of Mr. Brandt is not even seriously debated here as he very obviously meets all reasonable criteria of notability that can be established. Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

There are teenagers among Wikipedia's editors; I personally do not discredit a user's opinion based on their age and find such behavior in humans generally appalling. If someone makes a well-informed comment or observation, they deserve to be listened to no matter what their age or life experience. Similarly, if someone tends to repeat the same line of argument over and over again without making any effort to understand the other side, they deserve to be eventually ignored, even if they happen to be an adult with a lot of life experience. Mr. Brandt tends to fall into the latter category.

Erik

So how come it says that he has 0 posts?

Has some(y)body been oeuvreslighting him?

Jonny

Erik,

I think the vast majority of editors at Wikipedia are teens, college students, and people with a seemingly infinite amount of time on their hands, nicht vahr? Yes, I agree, smart people can contribute great ideas to most anything on the planet earth, but to say that teens and college students have any real sense of wisdom based on real life experience is, at best, a misnomer, and at worst, naivety at a fever pitch.

Wisdom requires time and a willingness to learn about the many different paradigms each aspect of life entails, while presenting with and encompassing a veritable sense of humility.

To be condescending toward Daniel Brandt, or anyone here, is not seemly, and is, in fact, in poor taste, albeit quite akin to the way things operate in the Durova sleuthing application of reality and atmosphere in the clouds, at WP.

I pray that you come here in good faith and not to start needless fighting and controversy.

Lee.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Tue 18th December 2007, 2:06pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...8#Daniel_Brandt

This was just "handed" to me and I am going for a walk on the beach...

So is Erik Möller notable enough for his own Wikipedia Bio now?

Or is it too obscene to suggest that?

Inquiring minions want to know …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 18th December 2007, 5:18pm

I still wanna know if anyone here has read Die heimliche Medienrevolution.

How high these standards are is a matter of internal debate between "inclusionists" and "deletionists", however, the case of Mr. Brandt is not even seriously debated here as he very obviously meets all reasonable criteria of notability that can be established. Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work.

You don't get, or choose not to address, the central point: even if someone most definitely should have an article written about them, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has the right to publish one according to its own inadequate standards, which after all this time you refuse to convincingly repair.

Morover, "notable" is not equivalent to "public figure:" the latter, not the former, governs a crucial distinction in libel. You may not make libelous claims about people, but your publication, in mainspace and in talk space (still published!) is grossly negligent in allowing this to occur time and time again. That you've been allowed to get away with it is just a failure of our system, which I hope will soon be remedied. You must be held 100% responsible for every single word you publish, and if yours were a serious publication, you'd proudly take this responsibility on your own accord.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 18th December 2007, 3:14pm

So is Erik Möller notable enough for his won Wikipedia Bio now?

Until if and when civil society steps up to the plate, I support the HiveMind/Encyclopedia Dramatica solution of independent biographies/satirical articles about Wikipedia administrators, with the caveat that only those who violate others' privacy and those that support them should be profiled. Profiling them en masse without regard for individual stances has hindered a solution by not offering individual Wikipedians a way forward. The collective is incapable of making the right decision, because its provocateurs instigate conflict on behalf of the collective. The goal should be to deprive these provocateurs of community support by putting supporters on notice that their privacy is dependent upon them making the right decisions about others'.

Good humored parodies and satires are a great idea.

Mean-spirited ones are not.

The mark of a good-humored parody is that the subject of the parody is able to laugh at himself/herself along with everybody else.

But there is another problem to be overcome, because parodies and satires have the effect of bringing their subject into disrepute. And Jimbo is firmly on record as being opposed to any userspace content that brings the community into disrepute.

Good humored parodies and satires are a great idea.

Mean-spirited ones are not.

The mark of a good-humored parody is that the subject of the parody is able to laugh at himself/herself along with everybody else.

There might be something like that on ED, but I can't browse through enough of their "parodies" and "satires" to tell before I get too disgusted to continue.

To think that such a "parody" or "satire" is comparable to, or acceptable retaliation for a neutral biography based on reliable sources is a bit perverse, in my opinion.

To think that such a "parody" or "satire" is comparable to, or acceptable retaliation for a neutral biography based on reliable sources is a bit perverse, in my opinion.

You have too much integrity! probably why you got desysopped.

To think that such a "parody" or "satire" is comparable to, or acceptable retaliation for a neutral biography based on reliable sources is a bit perverse, in my opinion.

If Wikipedia biographies were guaranteed to be "neutral biography based on reliable sources," we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Perhaps there are some who draw the line at the mere existence of any write-up anywhere (?) but Wikipedia has features which aren't found in any reputable publication. Anyone can edit, remember. That fundamentally contradicts any guarantee you might otherwise make about the character of any article at any given moment.

To take but one of many examples, Paul Danan's asserted that he and his business partners were planning to open a series of holocaust-themed fish-and-chip bars known as "Arbeit Macht Fry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157105123

This misinformation was posted for a month. People read this, possibly very many people. That's not part of a "neutral biography based on reliable sources," is it?

In what reputable publication could this happen? There isn't any. And who's responsible? You don't see even a pseudonym stepping down from an imaginary post. The lack of reliability and denial of responsibility are features, not bugs, of Wikipedia's novel system.

And the talk pages are even worse. The mere fact of opening or allowing a discussion about someone on Wikipedia puts that person at risk, because there's no telling what random people will say, and in the vast majority of cases, Wikipedia will publish the material indefinitely, with no one, not even the editors-in-chief and publishers, taking responsibility for one word of it.

The only protection in such an environment is anonymity…and, lo, that's exactly how most Wikipedia editors opt to engage. But bio subjects don't have that option. For them, the only protection is not to be written about at all.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:42pm

So is Erik Möller notable enough for his own Wikipedia Bio now?

Or is it too obscene to suggest that?

Inquiring minions want to know …

Jonny

He might not warrant a bio, but a nude picture, an ejaculating .gif, sure

(perish the thought).

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:43pm