http://wikipediocracy.com/2019/02/07/so ... er-learns/
I skipped to the bottom, because, well, y'know, their stuff is fuuuucking hard work. Imagine my surprise, when it seemed they had yet again, FIXED WIKIPEDIA. These folks are dead smart, aren't they? They make things go, as their leader once said, in an ironic but not appreciating the irony way.
Anyway, yes, behold the fix......
So, as you can see, they made some claims, and sat back like we're supposed to be glad their mom's and dad's bumped uglies and gifted the world their genius.What should be done? The same thing that should have been done when Qworty was exposed. First, acknowledge that there are people who use Wikipedia to attack other people, sometimes for years. Second, acknowledge that every biography is a potential target for this. Third, protect every single biography of a living person with the existing pending revisions system. Fourth, ensure that every new biography gets protected this way by an admin-bot. Fifth, fully and permanently protect articles that are obvious problems (like Rachel Marsden’s).
All of these actions could be done right now, with only a modicum of effort. And while none of them directly address the sockpuppetry issues, they would go a long way to cut down on cases like this going forward.
You know what this means too. TO THE ANALYSIS BUS!
Ok, right. You want Wikipedia to acknowledge that they facilitate scumbags? You expect this to happen. Did you, like, just meet them or something?acknowledge that there are people who use Wikipedia to attack other people, sometimes for years
Get the fuck out of here with this lazy ass shit. Telling people Wikipedia should do shit they never gonna do, like you're too stupid not to know they won't be doing it. You knew it, right? Riiiiight?
These fucking people. I hate it when they make me stick up for Wikipedia. If you don't think Wikipedia hasn't yet "acknowledged" biographies are potential targets for bad people looking to do bad shit, then you are blind. Your issue is how they react, clearly. As you well know. Please. Just stop with the stupid. You're meant to stop the cuetip when you feel resistance.acknowledge that every biography is a potential target for this.
Why? What will that achieve, for instance in this particular case? Do you think your readers are stupid? Do you think they might not realise how easy it would be for one of these bad people to get on the 'automatically accept my edits' list? It's a very big fucking list. Are you really trying to suggest to the world Wikipedia has had the capacity or the desire to do a background check on all the current 7,122 people on that list? Shit, I bet there are DEAD PEOPLE still on it. Wikipedians die. Not fast enough, but they are mortal. Not even Xeno likes them. And to state the fucking obvious, even if you can't get on that list, you just attack a related article, like.....a book.protect every single biography of a living person with the existing pending revisions system.
If you want to educate people, why not tell them how many times this scenario has played out: Wikipedia is busy being Wikipedia. Something bad happens, because, well, Wikipedia. They implement a fix. The bad people figure out how to circumvent this new inconvenience. Something bad happens. There are Wikipedia editors right now adding and removing white space from articles, one of the many ways around a recently erected barrier the Wikipedians were too stupid to even predict. You think that shit just happens? It's called an arms race. And Wikipedia isn't very good at making weapons. The encyclopedia is built and maintained by weapons, but that isn't the same thing at all.
Oh, I see. You're only pretending to be Wikipedia critics. What you are really here to do, is push their propaganda for them. Why not be honest with the reader? Why not tell them that this is precisely the strategy Wikipedia has right now, for fixing all its problems? Hand it all over to bots. Like that ever solved ANYTHING.ensure that every new biography gets protected this way by an admin-bot
Hey, geniuses. Didn't you start out by explaining that all biographies are potential targets? But hey, I'm all ears. Your method for determining what is and is not an obvious problem biography, is what exactly? If you say it is a biography that has been attacked before, I swear to God......fully and permanently protect articles that are obvious problems (like Rachel Marsden’s).
On spare me. I could rattle off twenty things the Wikipedians could do with virtually zero effort that would massively decrease the harm they do, and every single one of them, will not happen, not now, not ever. Just add your bullshit to the pile. Seriously, have you really never met the Wikipedians?All of these actions could be done right now, with only a modicum of effort.
Really? The Wikipedians could fulfil every wish on your sad little list, and the barriers to someone doing a Qwerty, the disincentives to the sort of people who do such things, would still be virtually indistinguishable from thoughts and prayers. Seriously, get the fuck out of here with this shit.they would go a long way to cut down on cases like this going forward.
There we have it. Not for the first time, dear reader, we serious critics who actually have knowledge of Wikipedia, are forced to apologise for the fact there are people out there who still think Wikipediocracy is a Wikipedia criticism site. Not for the first time, they have hidden the identity of the author of one of their laughable attempts at bringing knowledge and expertise to the world. Not even revealing their forum handle. Understandable really. They're kind of sensitive to criticism. Ironic, no?
You really want to prevent another Qwerty? Rather than just prop up a failing project with their own already tried and failed bullshit propoganda. In no particular order....
1. real identities required before editing
They won't do it, and I don't blame them in their position (not because it is not the right thing to do, but because a competitor would simply take advantage and launch Original Wikipedia, still with all that anonymous goodness you know and love), so we're back to the only sensible solution anyone has ever come up with to rid the world of the harm Wikipedia does......