When I was younger I would read the back covers of tape-cases at the local video rental and decide whether I wanted to rent a particular film. Anymore I've realized the shit is wholly meaningless and any correlation (between how much the ad copy interests me and how much the film interests me) means somebody fell down on the job, and probably got fired for it.

I'd hate to see WP articles degenerate toward that level. I still tend to turn there first when deciding whether a film is worth attending or renting. This is partly because I've found professional film reviewers (from Ebert all the way down to Horsey) gush too much with indescript vaguery to be readable beyond the proclaimed number of stars and/or thumbs. I suspect some are machine-generated, actually.

I know -I have an account there as well, even if it sits pretty much unused. As for "friendlier", well, it seems it is mostly a repository of stuff on WP drama...

I thought your name sounded familiar. I'm surprised you think Encyc is filled mainly with WP drama, but I don't want to hijack this thread... we can talk elsewhere.

Anyway, everyone lay off Cyclopia. This guy's alright.

No problem. It is not necessarily a critic, but there is a whole category on Wikipedians , on WP socks etc...



Hey, you are the third guy in a row that is acknowledging I am not some swerve-eyed incarnation of evil, and just a guy with some (perhaps misguided, who knows? I have been known to be wrong) opinions. Have I passed the WR mob-rule test? Or do I have yet to repeat three times AHRRRRR! I HATE JIMBOOOOH! before? Or, who knows, pissing on his picture, or something?

Seriously: I am happy to be pushed under heavy criticism and to discuss with people who think the opposite to me. That's why, despite the not-exactly-nice treatment I've been submitted, I stayed here. Larry was harsh but indeed made me think, for example. It's when you (generic) start to think that I must have some evil or idiot hidden agenda that conversation becomes moot, because what's the point of conversation with people who think you are a liar/troll/whatever? I hope things have improved from that, a bit?

THERE IS NO NEED TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, GODDAMN STOP RUINING WIKIPEDIA

Plot Twits № 1729 ……… Pierre Salinger was really right all along.

Jon

A lot of this again also comes down to marketing and underlines how dumb the collective ignorance of 'teh' community is. One or even 10 asshole volunteers stridently defend their ideal. It hits the mass media and real world as bad press. Today The Mousetrap, yesterday some Bollywood starlet. It all masses up, "don't trust the Wikipedia".

Unlike in a real business, the asshole volunteers do not have to pay, the owners and directors do not have to pay, as it sinks. But bad PR costs. In a real business, a more mature person would just say, "not worth the cost. let's play the game".

Adolescent quasi-ideals versus bad PR. Adolescent quasi-ideals win every time. Corporate policy decided by individuals with no experience, no qualifications, no responsibility, no buy-in. If it sinks, they export their obsession elsewhere.

The handful of idealist claim to represent the consensus as the public impression of the Wikipedia goes down the shitter again.

It can only happen so many time.

Well, you seem to be without guile. I don't think you're completely responsive and are way to easy on yourself (and Wikipedia) in terms of accepting responsibility rather than shifting it off on others. In particular I think you have not replied in any meaningful way to Larry Sanger's comments. You also haven't really replied to my own comments about the need to moderate your position to compensate for the whole in your world view caused by the cognitive deficits of AS. But that is not the kind of thing that anyone would accept right away, if at all.

I think this is because Google has given up on effectively indexing the web. Having realized that 90% of it is low grade nonsense it mostly chucks paid links first, then wikipedia being as its not much worse then the rest of the crap, and then anything goes after that.

Your parents give you your real name, but you pick your heroes.

Maybe you should work on your image.

Jon

Larry hit a number of good points. I still think that there is a qualitative abyss between private, personal information and public information, but in the end it is possible that it boils down to arbitrary assumptions one makes at start. I don't think it is just that, and when dealing with encyclopedias I am sure it is a flawed example (private info is not what encyclopedias share, period): but I am aware the logics of my answers was thin. I am still thinking about that.

About your comments, well, first of all remember that I've never been diagnosed formally with AS -it's just a simple test (even if a real one used to help diagnosis). I just posted that because the "geek personality" thing is something that indeed I have, and I wanted to throw a bone at you people to play with (like "see? it's true that I am a mentally disturbed person as you like to think, after all!"). Second, in any case: it's hard to rationally "compensate" for something that, in first place, you don't even know how it works/exists. But I do, at times.

Once I was at a one-day course about Myers-Briggs (T-H-L-K-D) organized by the university. I don't know if Myers-Briggs is total bullshit or not -it just sounded fun, it was free and there was free food If anyone cares, it seems I am INTP (T-H-L-K-D) (which indeed fits quite well my personality, even if there is probably a kind of horoscope effect). I remember one of the questions the guy asked to "separate" our personality types was:

"A friend knocks at your door at 3 a.m. You wake up upset, you find your friend in tears, visibly shocked. What do you do immediately? Do you hug your friend, or do you ask him what's going on?"

I immediately answered "I hug him". It turned out the answer was at odds with my "personality type" thing, but then I said "Well, my honest reaction would be that of asking what's going on: but I've learned from experience that in such situations it is not the best thing to do. So I would hug the friend, even if my brain screams "WHY FOR FUCK'S SAKE ARE YOU CRYING?" "

I guess that's "compensate".

I come out as an INTJ on those tests.

I'd hug the friend, but also wonder what the heck was going on.

Mod note: Horsey's inappropriate off-topic ramblings moved to the Support Forum

Sorry about that, Dogbiscuit.

I dont know but given the choice between his wife or the horse, I'd take the nag.

Here you go ... more negative PR.

As Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the foundation that operates Wikipedia, put it: “Generally it appears most Wikipedians support the notion that encyclopedias are often exhaustive when it comes to facts, and someone searching for an article about a story should be prepared to encounter a summary of the plot.”

Please note that these tests are "normed" on Wisconsin farmers or American College students or something, and some cultural biases creap in. An Italian man is far more likely to hug a male friend to give comfort than in lots of other societies, particular in America were we recognize that this is very gay, so we don't do it. Okay, maybe a side hug, or a frontal hug if you keep the hips well apart. And no ass-grabbing, such as you Italian men do, even with random female strangers.

That's probably why it's didn't "fit" with the rest of your profile. It's just that the test is parochial. They should modify that question.

Helpfully,

Milton

No need to buy the book. Wikipedia has it covered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_Cool_One_%28novel%29

Earlier today, I was reading an article about some fiction novel. And someone posted in the talk, something like "Uhhh, this gives away THE ENTIRE PLOT. There should be a spoiler warning or something."

I responded something like "Certainly not; including the entire plot, spoilers and all, is Wikipedia's house style." After reading through this thread (well, the parts that weren't about the MBTI), I actually still stand by it, even though I'm not a fan of Wikipedia's "information diarrhea right onto your face" paradigm.

Rollup spoiler sections might be OK, but they don't seem very like the way Wikipedia does things, to me. Wikipedia is at its best when it delivers a concise, but complete synopsis of the entire plot of a work. I do think it ought to be a little more obvious that if you want to read about a literary work without spoilers, this is not the site to go to.

I actually think that's a perfectly OK standpoint, even though I'm a BLP extremist, along the lines of "nearly all BLPs ought to be deleted." I'm not sure how those two viewpoints tie together.

Maybe that BLPs harm people, or have a strong risk of harming people, but (I feel) presenting the entire plot of a work is something that can validly be expected from a website that claims to be what Wikipedia claims to be.

In short, I guess I'm saying that with plot synopses, people simply ought to know better than to go to Wikipedia?

Because it's a cash cow for the estate which has successfully established in the popular mind that the denouement is extraordinary and must be kept secret (although Christie uses a similar device in several novels).

In truth, it's not a very good play whether you know the solution or not - but that's the reason for the fuss.