Wikipediocracy sells out another serious critic

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Wikipediocracy sells out another serious critic

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:22 pm

Look at this bullshit....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 45#p288845

Wikipediocracy has yet again managed to make a serious Wikipedia critic dislike them more than they dislike Wikipedia.

What made me laugh, were their supposed reasons.....

1. Jmmy Wales should only be criticised for what he has actually said or done
2. It's not factually accurate to suggest Wikipedia has been conning donors into donating by pleading poverty
3. It's an attack to call Wikipediocracy a forum for senior Wikipedia editors

HA HA UA HA HA HA HA HA.

See, this is why Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia got to be so similar. It's this easy to tell obvious and self serving lies about yourself, when you ban all the people who could and might like to contradict them.

That's me, certainly. I am banned there. Here's the truth bombs that explain why....

I certainly remember the way Wikipedia continued to persist with donation banners that very cleverly suggested, without of course actually being so clear they could be quoted in a court, that Wikipedia needed your money to survive. In other words, that it was teetering on bankruptcy. When the reality was, as Jimmy was quoted as explaining, their real motive was to hoard as much as they could to become self-sufficient, BEFORE donors realised a) how cash rich they were, and b) how little of that money was actually going on the essentials, like keeping the servers on, rather than grand strategies. Only now, after many embarrassing media stories, have they adjusted their messaging.

It would be a waste of everyone's time to enumerate the bazillion times that forum has launched a bazillion harsh words off the back of a clear and obvious misconstrual of Jimmy Wales' words or intentions. Indeed, Wikipediocracy are typically conspicuously absent when the great man says something inarguably true, and would have perhaps appreciated the support of a group of nominally independent critics, if they were as honorable as is being suggested now. It is true, for example, that Bishonen needed to be blocked for contemptuously calling an editor a little shit, to uphold the idea that Admins should be held to a higher standard. And it is true that, by resorting to her low standards and taking advantage of the already very feudal nature of the Wikipedia community, she won that civil war handsomely. She is now the undisputed Queen of Wikipedia, and there is no King, only a handful of Prince Consorts, people like Beeblebrox, who for all their own immense power, would not and frankly could not EVER unilaterally block Bishonen, not even for 12 hours.

And it's laughable to suggest Wikipediocracy isn't packed to the fucking rafters with extremely senior Wikipedia editors. The very people who, for example, gladly support Bishonen in any manner of abuse of her powers, in the name of the community, and certainly when cast against that evil Foundation, with their horrible ideas about civility and respect. It's long been a home from home for no less than five current Wikipedia Wikipedia Arbitration Committe members, NewYorkBrad, Gorilla Warfare, Beeblebrox, Cas Liber and Carcharoth, and a whole host of Wikipedia Administrators, who cut across a vast swathe of Wikipedia politics, but whose commonality is often of course, a belief that they know better than Jimmy or the Foundation.

Wikipedicoracy is, was, and will likely forever be, chiefly engaged in providing Wikipedia editors a forum to attack, not Wikipedians or Wikipedia as a whole, but their wiki enemies, and of course, Jimmy Wales and the Foundation.

They have temporarily reversed that stance here, simply because they felt threatened by the arrival of someone who was perhaps minded and capable of doing more to harm the Foundation than they ever could, from the standpoint of someone who actually also doesn't much like Wikipedia as a concept or the Wikipedia editors either.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2412
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 387 times

Re: Wikipediocracy sells out another serious critic

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:03 pm

Kelly Martin says what needed to be said (and speaks for me so I don't have to log in there; to be jeered at by Vigina)
This here is basically why I rarely participate here anymore. It's not why I stopped in the first place, that was different. But it's why I only occasionally (like, once every few months) pop in and look around, instead of participating on a regular basis like I used to.

Because there are just so many people coming here, often with very valid points to make (like michaelo's very legitimate point that the WMF is rolling in cash while constantly implying that they need even more money just to keep the coffee pot on) who are, well, batshit nuts. This forum is, to be frank, a crazy-magnet. (Not surprising, since Wikipedia is also a crazy magnet.) And I'm at the point in my life that I don't particularly to spend any more of my time dealing with crazy people than absolutely necessary.
Wikipedia=nut magnet=anything associated with Wikipedia
DONE

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Wikipediocracy sells out another serious critic

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:20 am

The Kelly Martin that said this......
It is obvious to any rational observer that this is not a "forum for senior Wikipedia editors". 
...that Kelly Martin?

Total crap, that.

To any rational person, most of the talking done on Wikipediocracy these days, is either by senior Wikipedia editors, or for the attention of or in solidarity with senior editors.

As sure as eggs is eggs these days, you post something on Wikipediocracy, you're more than likely to be responded to in a way that is virtually identical to the way you would be received at AN/I with the same issue.

Right down to the ignorant and arrogant way multiple people have now felt absolutely no shame in proudly declaring that they have decided to completely ignore everything Michael has ever said or ever will say, just because of one sentence they felt insulted by.

Boo hoo, you little bitches.

You would all be far more comfortable at Wikipedia, and you fucking know it.

Bill Maher would be banned by Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia. By their whiney little bitchness, ye shall know them.

Post Reply