The curious moral compass of Wikipediocracy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

The curious moral compass of Wikipediocracy

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:55 pm

Anyone else really understand this shit?

Wikipediocracy absolutely hates Abd because apparently he's a pedophilia advocate. This conveniently discredits a person who has successfully proven in court that the Wikimedia Foundation (and so by extension the Wikipedia community) can and will ban people for "any reason", including "no reason at all". In other words, their entire edifice of policy and rules, so often used as the reason someone was banned, up to and including ironically, their alleged distaste of pedophiles, is a sham.

Wikipediocracy absolutely hates Larry Sanger, co founder of Wikipedia and original author of their neutrality policy, because apparently he's all in with QAnon now. This conveniently discredits the one person who really can and should be believed when he says things about all Wikipedia community like "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" and how it's biased as hell. All the more shameful since Wikipediocracy happily made use of Larry when it was convenient for them.

Wikipediocracy absolutely loves Jess Wade, thinks she is doing nothing wrong. This conveniently stops any opportunity to show that all an editor needs to do in order to obtain a community exemption from standard enforcement of even a serious policy like BLP on her work, is be noticed in the press as an example of allegedly what social good can be done by a volunteer Wikipedia editor.

Wikipediocracy absolutely loves hosting and spreading the conspiracy theory that a lesbian power couple existed for years at the very top (literally the very top) of the Wikimedia Foundation, abusing their position to enrich themselves and frustrate community efforts to expose them. This conveniently prevents the more plausible explanation for what had happened from being seen - that the highes echelons of self governance in the Wikipedia community had simply failed to spot, much less act, when it was repeatedly presented with evidence that one of their most powerful and active Administrators, Fram, was harassing a woman editor. And excusing it as if it was his actual role.

Wikipediocracy absolutely hates Commons, seizing upon any and all opportunity to criticise it, even though in many respects, it is the far superior project to Wikipedia, and is still upholding the original ideals of the movement. Most importantly, that content should be free and educationally useful. When confronted with a copyright ignoramus who only wants to upload imagery to further his abuse of Wikipedia as some kind of political blog, they do what is necessary and stop him, and it is a mark of the state of English Wikipedia that his name is Ritchie333, one of their most respected Administrators. This Wikipediocracy hate campaign against the Commons conveniently presents Wikipedia as somehow being the better managed and more ethical project, even though many of their criticism of Commons, apply equally to Wikipedia, such as ease of vandalism. It also conveniently advances the quite false narrative that Commons' only purposes is as an image repository for Wikipedia. It is not.

Now, what does this all tell us? Well, consider what this all achieves. All of the above serves to nullify and otherwise obfuscate evidence and arguments that the English Wikipedia community is indeed what us serious critics think it is. It's not an egalitarian paradise of equals, it's a vicious MMPORG where social capital is everything, where the English Wikipedia editors are somehow the Imperial masters of not just all the othe language Wikipedias, but all the other Wikimedia projects too, and all their rules exist only for the convenience of those who are inside, who want to keep outsiders out.

Is that a surprise? Not really. Wikipediocracy is, after all, simply these days, a forum for senior English Wikipedia editors. Some of them very senior, for they don't come much higher than Beeblebrox, or more influential than Ritchie333. As such, they want to promote and advance any theory or argument that hides the true nature of the English Wikipedia community, and places blame for any and all faults where they have always thought they lie - the Wikimedia Foundation. The evil overlords. Not just incompetent in the eyes of the noble hard working volunteers, but greedy and corrupt.

It's horseshit, naturally. These claims that the Foundation have done something not just wrong but corrupt, usually don't even pass the smell test. As easily shot down as a Kumooko post. And on the odd occasion they do find any wrongdoing, you merely need to point out that in the same time period, the volunteers of English Wikipedia have usually been guilt of way more seriously bad shit, that never ever seems to come up on Wikipediocracy.

The sheer levels of lies and corruption that underpins the Daily Mail ban for example, is just an ordinary day for that scumbag community. That is proof positive that the English Wikipedia editors are not in the business of reflecting the world, they are in the business of shaping it to their idea of how it should be. And we all know what their biases are in that regard. Basically, Democrat so called progressive politics, but without the inconvenience of women or minorities or foreigners actually having a say or indeed any power at all.

Patronising bullshit, in other words. Ritchie333, a privelaged white man, having community granted power to lecture people on how best to recruit and retain women editors, even after he has proven he is a threat to women. Jess Wade, a privileged white woman, having the community granted power to simply ignore complaints that she treats the sloppy writing of biographies of black women as mere opportunities for self advancement. She's a published kid's author now. How'd that happen? Wikipedia, obviously. Find me a Foundation executive who has had that kind of success in parlaying a fake interest in a selfless endeavor, into cold hard cash.

It's a curious way to go about criticism of Wikipedia. But what do you expect from people who are themselves, Wikipedia editors, some openly, some secretly, some still active, some merely lapsed until the glorious day that the community somehow revolts and obtains full and complete control of Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia community being bears of little brains, they can ever quite wrap their heads around the fact that dream is an impossibility. What makes them hate the Foundation, many of whose ranks were of course drawn from their own, is what makes them hate anyone who is given the grave responsibility of being the legal owner and operator of a very large and allegedly influential website, even if that website has wide Section 230 immunity. You have to be professional, accountable, and take the unpopular decisions that need to be taken. You have to call Fram a harasser and ban him for it, because that is what he is, and a court of law would have agreed, had it got that far.

Not that you even need to prove he was of course. Why? We're back to the advantages of having people like Abd on our side. He is crazy, but unless or until you can show me he is a convicted pedophile, I prefer to be far more disgusted by the way the volunteer Wikipedia community has chosen to hide the fact Marek Kukula is an actually convicted consumer of hard core child porn, simply because to admit it would mean they must have erred in banning the Daily Mail. That's fucked up. People unprepared to condemn it, don't have a leg to stand on when speaking about whatever Abd may or may not believe.

The Foundation are not blameless, but their crimes are at least understandable, crimes of opportunity and self preservation, if you will. If an ignorant press (something Wikipediocracy theoretically exists to correct) is willing to present Jess Wade as a star editor, rather than an example of just how incompetent and downright fucking nasty even the allegedly nicest Wikipedia editors can be, why would they stop them? That positive press recruits more editors, by fooling the ignorant public into thinking they are dealing with their systemic biases. So why would they tell the truth?

The volunteer community has no such excuse. Well, nothing good, anyway. If the community of editors followed their own rules, the Foundation can claim that while they might be self serving as a corporation, they are also doing good for the public. The volunteers do what they do, manifestly harming the public good, ignoring their own principles and rules being a big part of that, only because they're sad pathetic addicts, who through sheer dumb luck, stumbled on a hobby that somehow makes them feel important. Let's them imagine, even thought it really is an utter absurdity, that they are good at writing an encyclopedia. Let's them play an MMPORG, and call it something way more high minded. Building a free encyclopedia.

It's horseshit, naturally. It's been twenty years, and Wikipedia is still not looking like an encyclopedia, not even one as shit as a price tag of zero cents and zero dollars would suggest. You wouldn't accept dog poo was a hot dog just because it was being given away for free, would you? Only 0.09% of their articles (and dropping, it used to be 0.1%) are even good enough for Britannicca, and that's by their own measure, which will obviously be far more generous than an impartial judge.

You don't hear that sort of thing being raised on Wikipediocracy. Why? Because an honest accounting of the sham that is Wikipedia, is deeply hurtful to the Wikipedia editors. Because they are at their core, selfish, amoral, arrogant bastards. We should probably celebrate the fact that there are so few of them, it says a lot about humanity as a whole. There is hope.

And so by extension, it is deeply hurtful to the people who run Wikipediocracy, the people they have and need to post there, on a daily basis. These people think I am a hostile, nasty person, and yet what is so hostile or nasty about presenting such benign true facts as these?

As ever, they will be as mute on this issue, as Wade is about her obvious incompetence. And that, dear readers is the truth of these scumbags. Wikipedia editors and Wikipediocracy management. Their policy is the same. Say nothing and admit nobody who would challenge their truth.

A cult is what a cult does.

And lest you be confused, and believe that the above observations are a sign the Wikipediocracy folk are just good, kind, moral people, who would naturally condemn alleged pedophiles and QAnon believers, have a fucking word with yourself. This is the forum that have a voice to Eric Corbett, and latterly Ritchie333. Horrible people. Wikipedia believers, to their core. Evil people.

These pretend humans are far worse than the outliers. Because their animosity, when not being directed at women and minorities and anyone who would edit Wikipedia in a way that displeased them, was often directed at the poor saps who take the thankless and ridiculous task of paid employment at the Foundation. People who should be saluted for their bravery, because who among us is crazy enough to take a job where that sort of scum, is allegedly your customer, or worse, apparently your equal, people who readily go one further and act like you're they're subordinate.

What the fuck have they done to deserve it? Editing Wikipedia is easy. EASY. Writing even a Featured Article should be well within the capabilities of any graduate. All you need is time, and the delusional belief that you have the right to have your work acknowledged, even though in all likelihood you have done nothing that warrants you having that kind of power and influence to shape other people's knowledge.

Frauds and chancers. Talentless worthless fucks, who should be thanking their lucky stars every goddamned day, that for some daft reason, Jimmy Wales decided they were of some use to society.

Wikipediocracy is their home from home. How fitting that for most of their miserable lives, they have attacked Jimmy from that platform. Even now, when serious Wikipedia critics recognise he has absolutely no ongoing responsibility for or any influence over any of the top 10 seriously bad things that Wikipedia represents, they're still finding time to make pathetic jibes.

I hereby issue an open challenge to Wikipediocracy. If you care about children's safety, for example, if you actually dislike pedophilia for moral reasons, rather than apparently seeing it in the case of Abd as a convenient way to help the Wikipedia community discredit one of the most powerful discoveries of their cult's core truth in the last decade (that they don't need any reason to exclude anyone), then make your voice known as it regards the Marek Kukula case, which has the potential to expose another of their core truths (that they happily set aside potential harms to children, if protecting children would harm Wikipedia).

If the Daily Mail ban isn't bullshit, what's gone wrong there?

Speak now, or forever feel your faces ground beneath my boot.

The boot of truth. The boot of justice. The boot of a serious Wikipedia critic.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: The curious moral compass of Wikipediocracy

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:27 pm

Add to that the curious historical case of how Wikipediocracy never really said anything about why it was that Wikipedia puts parents in the position of not knowing why their twelve year old daughters are up in their rooms crying their little hearts out (and refusing to say why, which must be every parent's nightmare, in a world with people like Marek Kukula in it, and websites like Wikipedia actively choosing to conceal the threat they pose).

(it's because Wikipedia chooses not to accept that twelve is too young to be put in a position of responsibility, and those girls shouldn't be in receipt of rape threats just because they made use of an Administrative power in a way their immature mind thought was right, but will be contested anyway, whether it was right or not)

The Wikipediocracy folk could have said something. Seized upon this opportunity to land a hammer blow on the evil Wikipedia community (arguably it is a matter for the volunteers not the Foundation to decide if there should be an age limit for Administrators, since thye would no doubt see that as a matter reserved to self governance).

They had every opportunity. That child having risen the ranks to become one of the most senior Wikipedia editors, and so naturally posts on Wikipediocracy. But much like NewYorkBrad, their participation in the forum is very much on the basis of letting them pick and choose what they will and won't comment on. Very deferential to their rightful masters, the Wikipediocracy folk. Not that anyone even raised it, being the ultimate point.

Why not? Are they blind to this evil, or are they fully aware of it and are simply unwilling to go there because it would deeply damage the editor community to pull at that thread? Who put that young girl in that position? Or more importantly, who is currently responsible for it still being the case that a young but bright young girl can quite easily become a Wikipedia Administrator at twelve, and would be merely discouraged from advertising her age and gender. Not Jimmy Wales. Not the Foundation.

See? The ripples of standing in lock step with the Wikipedia community over the issue of Fram and who really governs Wikipedia, continue to reach far and wide. You simply can't hand such decisions over to people who don't have the legal or moral accountability. What does the likes of Eric Corbett give a damn about this important issue? Other than he would be quite annoyed to realise that his proud policy of being an equal offender means he is, as a matter of historical fact, an insulter of if twelve year old girls. Probably quite capable of bringing them to tears, if not through a rape threat, then certainly by saying some deeply hurtful things, typically over very trivial matters too.

Don't say I didn't warn you about your mistakes here, because I did, you stupid bastards. I told you what Eric Corbett was. I told you what Fram was. I told you why Floquenbeam was doing what he was doing. You disagreed, and often quite vehemently.

As always, time and tides have proven me right.

It was a curious historical silence, given their current bashing of Abd has inevitably turned to the issue of parental consent.

They care about parents having control over their kids when it comes to Abd posting random thoughts in a way that is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia, and yet they apparently don't care when it comes up in the context of their vulnerability on Wikipedia? Strange.

The curious moral compass, at work again.

Some might call it a Hazard. :lol:


Don't test me bros. Because I'll fucking give you a tazing you're never going to forget.

Post Reply