For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
- Sucks Mod
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
Yeah the WPO site has really turned sellout that's for sure. I also think it's funny the Kelly and Greybeard came out of retirements to pontificate on how great Zoloft was doing and how the great steamroller of wikipedia has become unstoppable. They literally said WPO is, and always has been irrelevant to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, now that has become more true than ever. TD Adler has done more to bring attention to Wikipedias problems than WPO ever has or ever will.
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Has thanked: 98 times
- Been thanked: 245 times
Deletion of WHAT thread??rhindle wrote: My own 2 cents: I think, at least on the surface, that the deletion of the thread seemed heavy handed. A change to the thread title could have been done or even move to a non-public area. Of course there may be more details I am not aware of so I'm not going to outright say the thread deletion was the wrong choice. However, if the assertions are considered bullshit, I think proving it's bullshit is better than deleting, even if it's for the upteenth time. Hersch is an "OG" critic so I figured he'd get more leeway but did he "exhaust" the management's patience?
As to the more meta discussion about wikipedia criticism in general, I do agree that there are bigger fish to fry in today's world than WP. Sure, it's still dysfunctional with a lot of problems but it's the same ol' same ol' and the criticism is same ol' same ol' also. Just some of the names have changed. Right now, social media is much more toxic as more get their info which is tailored to their confirmation biases where they are much more prone to "fake news" regardless of political persuasion. More and more are opening their eyes to this and there is improvement. Even though this site is dedicated to WP there is a window here to branch out to social media criticism as well and not just when it's at least tangential to WP. If those in charge here don't want to do that then that's fine but I think there could be an opportunity here.
For what little it matters, Kelly has been saying more-or-less as much for at least 10 years, long before Wikipediocracy existed, and about WR before it. She is a former arbitrator so I would tend to take her comments very seriously.Kumioko wrote:Yeah the WPO site has really turned sellout that's for sure. I also think it's funny the Kelly and Greybeard came out of retirements to pontificate on how great Zoloft was doing and how the great steamroller of wikipedia has become unstoppable. They literally said WPO is, and always has been irrelevant to Wikipedia.
It is also why I became burned out on writing a proper book about WP history. The Wikinerds SHOULD be criticized, they unquestionably deserve plenty of criticism. The site is stlll infested with cranks, sockpuppets of cranks, Wiki-fanatics, Jimbo's handpicked sluts, and general madness. But two generations of internet users have become completely inured to WP's existence in its present form. There simply isn't enough will or interest in the general public to "fix" it--assuming that was even possible without a total purge of the admin corps and the WMF. US politcs have become so toxic and bonkers that Wikipedia is the pettiest of sideshows, by comparison.