I don't know why so many "long-time editors" seem very surprised and indignant to discover that Jimmy Wales is a horrible manager of communities, and that he's basking in success and fame on the thankless labor served up by grunts who don't realize that Jimmy Wales keeps the architecture deliberately labor-intensive, because it's so addictive.

Good luck on the "outside", Blofeld!

In short, Dr. Blofeld retires again.

For those unwilling to sort through the rubbish of Jimbo's talk page, here is the comment that Blofeld made, and Jimbo deleted, citing "trolling":
I don't have much of an opinion yet on the underlying topic, but Jimbo is certainly thin-skinned about criticism. That said, the "listen to me, listen to me!" nature of the comment is a little shrill.

Jimbo never accused me of being a sexist or a troll. Maybe a troll behind my back. I feel left out.

Jimmy defines "trolling" as any opinion he takes a dislike to.

Blofeld will be back very shortly, he's given too much to Wikipedia, there's no easy way out for an addict like him.

So? Did you ever go to his TALK page and write: "Maybe if you actually offered decent incentives to editors to get much needed work done for you you'd attract better contributors and more female editors instead of expecting everybody to pussy foot around you while you reap all the rewards."

I think if you had, it probably would not have stayed long.

Consider the rather pathetic sweetness and social cluelessness of Blofeld thinking that he can somehow change Jimbo's mind, or Wikipedia, by showing up on Jimbo's TALK page and complaining. As though Jimbo would pay any attention. As though the comments would be allowed to stay long enough for anybody ELSE to pay attention. It's even funnier when you consider the username Blofeld has chosen for himself.

Hey, Blofeld! Would-be Bond-villain! Wikipedia Review exists as a separate website, and not as a TALK page of Wikipedia, for a very good reason. No really pointed criticism of the S.O.P. at WP, or management at WMF, will ever be hosted by WP. They can't abide it.

That's why we do it all from our secret lair, here under this fake volcano. And Alison: that helmet-suit you're wearing in the lair doesn't fool us one bit. You walk like a girl!

I keep trying to but for some reason the system wont let me.

But yes, anyone else think it is odd how Blofield thinks his "contributions" are anything more than what a bot could do?

Much as it pains me to do so, I'm going to defend Blofeld on that score. Don't let the flood of bot-generated substubs he created hide the fact that he did a lot of substantive work on important-but-unfashionable topics which went generally unnoticed, as they're neither in English-speaking countries nor ever mentioned in The Simpsons—Deforestation in Brazil, Sharabha or Maiden Tower (Baku) for instance. If Wikipedia is ever going to become a credible reference work, those are just the kind of significant-but-not-covered-by-Britannica topics which it ought to have.

Okay, okay, I'll grant you that, but still - those super stubs are still mind boggling.


(As a note, not Blofield but Blofield did do a lot of work on the article).

They are indeed. Dr. Blofeld and I recently had a little spat after I called him the king of the micro-stubs, but to be fair he's done a lot more than that, and a lot more than many others, including Jimmy Wales.

Only because you want every thread to be about you.

Quite. But that seems to be the generally accepted wikipedia definition of trolling.

A few notes:
To Blofeldt: Of course Jimbo has nothing but contempt for Blo´s contribution.....but then Jimbo has nothing but contempt for any of us suckers who works for free (for him, he hopes). I thought that had been quite obvious for years?

And the question at hand: I, for one, was completely dumbfounded by the ...the...., let us say "shortness of vision" that Gardner showed in her now infamous and much repeated statements about lack of women in wikipedia. (But, that maybe because I am not very interested in the articles about Jimmy Choo & Manolo Blahnik. Or even their shoes.)

Being female, and contributing in the Israel/Palestine-area....where Wikipedia has a reputation of matching Göring and Goebbels output of hate and propaganda (hi, Goodwin!)....is a slightly more troublesome aspect, I would have thought. And the same problem is present in several other areas. And Jimbo just doesn´t get it.

(And I´ll leave Gardner´s total over-sell of her own "achievements" on wikipedia: just a typical "climber" self-promotion that few would have reacted against if she had been a man )

Ah, but the pair of Gardner and Jimbo: where did you ever see such a fine pair of intellectual .. pygmies?

There is some good stuff on wp, (to quote Leonard Cohen: there are flowers on the garbage-heap), but apparently the current leadership does not see any need to weed out the garbage. And with their self-serving attitude, I do not expect much from them in the future.

The only solution, I think -sometime- in the future, someone else will develop the idea of online encyclopedia...hopefully taking the "good" stuff from wp.

That would leave wikipedia behind; sort of letting wikipedia be to online encyclopedia what altavista has become to online search engines: "the great new thing" one day.... totally forgotten 15 years after.

(Note to self: spend more time on licensing-issues.)

PS: I could say a lot about Blofeldt...but since this thread is about Jimbo (Thanks, Greg)..I´ll leave it for now.

I've caused Blofeld to "retire" at least twice. He seems to do it often. Whether or not a lack of validation is the straw that breaks the camel's back in this instance is another question.

To Blofeld, I can only recommend that if he really feels as he does on his user page, there are plenty of other places to write and numerous places to get money and/or cash at the same time. <If I were Kohs, ad goes here>

Contributing to a freely editable reference work out of some expectation of validation is not a great motivation. Some are ignorant, others just don't care about Jimmy and the WMF because the sausage is more interesting than how its made.

Have to disagree, there. Resume-padding may be common, but any male-dominated or technical organization has a way around it. There's a bull session, and it doesn't involve how many women you've slept with (or how many grandchildren you have). It's to find out if you can be trusted to hold up your end. So inquiry is made to see if you speak the lingo, how many base jumps you have, how many logged dives, how many hours of flying time and in what sorts of aircraft, what weapons have you qualified with, what is your batting average, how many class 5 climbs have you done, and where, did you ever lead anything above 5.1, and so on. Whatever the honest metric of competence is, in the task at hand. In this world-- the world of competence-driven authority, not formal organization-assigned authority-- Sue wouldn't last 10 minutes before being pegged as a poseur.

Does all of this correspond with "formal rank" in human organizations? No, indeed! The biggest friction in any organization is the basic friction between people who have the assigned authority to tell others what to do, and those people who SHOULD have it, by way of competence and experience. Wikipedia has not solved this problem, either. However, most volunteer organizations and recreational organizations (especially those involving dangerous activities like climbing, diving, etc) do a far better job of solving it than Wikipedia has (and indeed, than WMF has).

Blofeld needs a new hobby.

Are we not talking about two different things, here?
One is the internal "pecking-order" in an organization. Wikipedia equivalent of # of base jumps or logged dives is to ask how many DYK, FA, and FAs have you achieved, your edit-count, your articles created, your barnstars, block-record (or lack of it), bla, bla bla.
(And yeah; much can be said of the merit, or lack of it, of these "measurements", but, as this Blofeld -case shows: all the "normal" wikipedia "measurements" counts for absolutely nothing if you do not kiss the behind of The Great Leader.)

However, another thing is the "spin" presented to the "outside"...which is what Gardner is/was guilty of. Note the forum: she isn´t presenting herself as a great editor inside the organization...that would be too stupid. No, she is presenting her spin to the (gullible) outsiders (read: newspapers).

Which is, to me, completely unsurprising.

Now; what is more interesting is that her lack of logged dives wikipedia-edits, and/or a lack of ...shall we say, "intellectual stature", gives her such a shallow insight into fundamental problems of wikipedia. But that is something she shares with Jimbo.

Which is, to me, far more astonishing.

I know someone (working for a large US corporation) whose job largely consists of, whenever there is a problem to be fixed, finding out who is responsible for getting it fixed, finding out who can actually fix it, and making sure that they don't talk to one another, so that the problem will actually get fixed in a timely manner.

I wish I could frame this post.



Is that a local policy at your acquaintance's office? Or is it a corporate policy at all locations?

Interesting - does the person in question act as a mediator, or actually as a form of interference? I mean, if a person like that simply reduced the number of meetings and memos by half, or even less than half, that could justify a full-time salary right there, for some companies. Maybe lots of companies.

That's the thing about Wikipedia too, of course - they're hierarchical and bureaucratic when they should be flexible, and chaotic/disorganized when they should have clear lines of authority. That's because people are drawn to whatever is the most fun when tangible incentives and disincentives are taken away, and anything that involves dealing with real people in the real world is unusually no fun at all.

Well, absolutely, and at the risk of boring people with my usual pat diagnosis, it's standard-issue online narcissism. Blofeld is a classic case - he's always been like this, but at least in this particular instance he seems to have a fairly clear view of what's going on now, even though he naturally tends to define the problems in self-referential terms.

I should say, though, that while it probably depends on the nature of the "incentives," I doubt that any sort of meaningful incentive program would increase the percentage of female WP users. What's more, it's pretty clear that the WMF leadership understands that, and that their recent talk has been almost solely for the purpose of sounding like they care, because that's what Big Donors want to hear. (The Big Donors don't really care either, of course, other than for the PR value.)

As for Blofeld, you never know - maybe this time he'll stay away for more than a couple of days. If he could just get to a full week, preferably two or three weeks, he might have a real shot. The real psychological withdrawal doesn't start for at least a week or two.

But the cravings!! Each one lasts an average of 8 minutes. And just when you have the last one licked, along comes another.

There's that, which I would put down to an addictive/obsessive personality type of some kind... and there's also misery-loves-company, where other WP'ers try to get you to come back, so that you feel like Al Pacino in that "'dey pull me back in" speech from Godfather III. And then there's just simple boredom and loneliness, not knowing where else to go.

I guess what I'm saying is that the person in question has to really want to quit, and (depending on the degree of addiction) needs some sort of plan. It's pretty clear that Blofeld doesn't really want to quit, and has no plan. Even though at this point, it seems like for him, Wikipedia could be a significant factor in a closed-loop of repressed self-loathing, which isn't healthy at all - even (or maybe especially) for a narcissist.

What I think you are missing here Somey is that I actually choose to edit wikipedia because I want to see it improved and move towards certain topics which I think we should cover and get away from focusing on US culture. If I need to stop editing or want to, I really have no problems with stopping. At the end of the day it is just a website so talking about me having this incurable disease is absurd. Yes , I agree that I've spent way too much time editing wikipedia but I have many days when I am very enthusiastic and probably overedit and others, especially recently where don't really care about wikipedia and I've dedicated more time to learning jazz, spanish and working out. In fact I'm sure if you did an "analysis" of my editing history you'd find my edit count and number of article creations way down on what it was in 2007-2008.

I really don't think it is important what Jimbo thinks. What infuriated me was the way he has never shown support yet was quick to pass me off as a "troll". Sort of a kick in the teeth really. Most of the time I try to focus on what editing the site gains for me as a resource, not what Jimbo is getting paid...





As for

"Wikipedia could be a significant factor in a closed-loop of repressed self-loathing, which isn't healthy at all - even (or maybe especially) for a narcissist."

Somey. You really have a strange perception..... Sure I like people to approve of things I do and to make myself feel that I'm doing something worthwhile. If I was really a "self-loathing narcissist" I think wikipedia would be the last website I'd turn to...

Oh yeah? But can you do this? -





Or this? -





If we give you ten dollars, will you punch Lar in the nose?

Jazz and flamenco is my passion. Try Larry Carlton, Joe Pass, Barney Kessel, Tocuardo Mariano, Bireli Lagrene, Neil Schon, Santana, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, oldies like Duke Ellington, Fats Waller, Dave Brubeck etc and flamenco/classical like Paco de Lucia, John McLaughlin, Al Di Meola, John Williams, Paco de Pena, Andres Segovia and the gorgeous Ana Vidovic. All of them are the true musicians unlike most of today's "artists". Naturally I'm heavily into blues and rock too. I'm a guitarist but I'm learning jazz piano.

Well, let's see some music videos of your magic fingers in action -- there are a lot of jazz fans here, and I am sure we would all to get a glimpse of your work!

Out of curiosity who is the most hated wikipedia administrator amongst you lot? Who are the ones people really detest on here?

For myself, I don't hate anyone on WP. Hatred is a waste of time and emotion.

OK then, who are the administrators who most agree have most lost the plot in terms of what wikipedia is really about? Because a lot of the "pretend policemen" I've encountered don't seem to have actually edited an encyclopedia article in five years...

Check out Wikipedia WP:DICK of Distinction awards pageant, and the history of that award, and you'll get a statistically valid answer, within the margin of error for Internet forums.

Other than Jimbo himself, SlimVirgin, Cyde, JzG, Jayjg, FT2, and especially David Gerard seem to have attracted the most negative scrutiny here, varying over the years. Ryulong, Elonka, Will Beback, and Rual654 are also (or once were) frequently mentioned. In other words, about who you'd expect.

As an aside, you won't get very far with the "you lot" business. Membership here is pretty diverse, ranging from multiple sitting WP Arbcom members, admins, and checkusers to banned and ardent despisers of Wikipedia and everything it stands for -- and everything in between. Not much unanimity of opinion, except perhaps that Jimbo is a dick.

You, but then you're not an admin.

Look thru these subfora. Eeny, meeney, miney, moe.
Or have a look at past winners of the DICK Award.

Short answer: the more powerful they are, the less plot they have.

I'm curious....did you ever finish university, or are you one of those "professional student" types, who can afford to spend 16 hours a day logged into Wikipedia because you have no intention of graduating? And just how much do you enjoy being exploited by Jimbo and Sue?

All of them.

Surely you'll forgive us for thinking there's a reason for your astonishingly extensive editing (and stub-creation) activity that goes beyond mere "wanting to improve..."?


But do you know why he did that? I believe I do, and if so, it has very little to do with the quality of your WP contributions, perceived or otherwise.


IMO there's really no such thing as a "self-loathing narcissist." Once you turn to self-loathing, you cease to be a narcissist - sure, there are people who would argue that nearly any combination of psychological characteristics are possible within such a broad classification, but I'm not one of them.

Bearing that in mind, my point was that if you're a narcissist, with all that entails (craving praise and attention; ascribing powers and knowledge to oneself that are at least partially imaginary; inability to handle criticism; inaccurately invoking authority/history as being "on your side," etc.), you can eventually get to be so beaten down by things like social rejection and harsh peer criticism that you just snap - your ego-facade crumbles, you might even have a kind of nervous breakdown, and you can become very depressed as a result. True, it's less likely to happen as a result of Wikipedian interaction than as a result of problems at a real-life job or among one's immediate family, because the personal stakes are so much lower. But it does occasionally happen - we've seen it happen.

This is why I'm rooting for you to get out (of WP) and stay out. This website we're on here, WR, is actually a healthier place for you than Wikipedia is, even with all the people who think you're a general-purpose menace. (Admittedly though, that's not saying much!)

OK, thanks for your replies Somey. Now Mr. Fuchs (sorry for being an A-hole to you on wikipedia, the system tends to do that sort of thing to people) any ideas about websites which pay editors to write for them and actually reward them for their efforts? I've done a fair bit of paid work myself for music related forums but nothing much beyond that of late. Most of the others have been shitty we'll pay you 2 cents for 100 page views type schemes and only eligible for US citizens...

I am not Mr. Fuchs, but I might be able to help you in regard to getting writing gigs. It all depends on the subject you are interested in covering and your talent/background as a writer. You can send me a private message if you want to have a serious talk about that.

I enjoyed that. A little hesitant in places, but if I could play even a tiny fraction as well as that I'd be well pleased.

Surely Pastor Theo has got to be one of the worst ever?

The serious answer of course is that most of them are dicks (not all, but most), so it would be unfair to focus on one.

LOL. Pastor Theo.

Malleus, check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9vNSA0WNlw

A lot of clapping!!

SlimVirgin? Never had any beef with her I don't recall but would the opposite I suppose would be User:FatLardSlapper. That would be quite a username, now why does Kerry Katona come to mind...

There's something about guitar playing that I never got my head around, so instead I invested in a synthesiser, which I absolutely love. My ambition though is rather modest, just to be able to play reasonably competently one well-known piece, perhaps a Chopin prelude. For the rest I just enjoy producing the loud rock noises and church organ stuff. Especially the church organ stuff.

Well I learned classical piano from age of 7-14 I think. But I never learned to play without music until recently. Yeah I love Chopin, absolute genius. Easily my favourite composer. Ballade no.1 is possibly the most astounding piece I've ever heard in terms of technical quality. Who plays it best, mmm I'd say Zimmerman just edges Horowitz on that one. Liszt and Bach are also my favourites. Admittedly Mozart doesn't really do it for me, I prefer Beethoven. For somebody who never used to like classical and was solely a rock fan for many years I've come to appreciate it in recent times. A lot of classical music doesn't float my boat and a lot of jazz I find too avant garde. I generally like very melodic "emotional" sort of music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR7eUSFsn28

Chuck Norris performing Ballade No.1.

I don't know if Charo ever made any impact in the UK, but in the US during the 1970s and early 1980s she was a ubiquitous TV presence -- her strength was primarily in her comic fracturing of the English language and her wonderfully blatant sex appeal (which she emphasized by shaking her body while chanting "Cuchi-Cuchi!"). Although flamenco and classical guitar is part of her act, she is mostly known in the US for her sexy comedy.

Is she actually playing that? How come her Spanish guitar has no visible acoustic pickups or leads? You can also hear a second guitar reinforcing the notes of the first. Hmmmmm

If you look at old discussion, and current grumbling, you would have the impression that Jayjg is the cause of WP's problems.

Here's another one for horsey.

For me??? I'm the one posting Charo videos -- I want "cuchi-cuchi," not Chopin played by some half-asleep blonde!

This is more of my type of classical music:

I can definitely say that Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation is a subject I can rant about for quite some time. Could there really be a more incompetent leader? I mean, I know most presidents of France are in the running, but still.