What's going on at WPU now?
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:03 am
It is looking rather boring and slow right now. Anyone got news?
BADSITEBADSITEBADSITE
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1835
None of the surviving members of Wikipediocracy are journalist-y types; they like to complain about how badly en.Wikipedia is running on a forum, but they aren't going to start a blog or email chain or pdf newsletter. They need a writer, they won't get one. It's already a forum with a dead blog.Dr Mario wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:21 pmOn the front page there hasn't been an new article since j\January 7, 2020, that's some 9 nine months but I would like think that website that's supposed to be critical of Wikipedia should have more activity than that. However there is some activity WPU's forum so I would guess that for most part that website is dying apart from its forum. So would anyone be shocked if WPU would retreat to forum-only format at some point ?
I don't think that's entirely right. I was never a welcome visitor at Wikipediocracy, and it always seemed to me that Poetlister kept the whole thing active. Why he does that in the face of a constant onslaught from the egregious Vigilant god alone knows. If they banned Vigilant they might be able to recruit a few more members, but they won't.ericbarbour wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:01 amMost of the traffic on the forum (which is a fraction of what it was in 2014) consists of people like Poetguy, a few admins, Kumioko (when he's not banned), Eric Corbett (when he's not banned), Somey, Wee Billy, and a few others talking about trivia. And occasional fart-splosions from Vigilant. As I've said before, this is NOT Wikipedia criticism, it is mostly fanboyism. Wikipedia is now evidently "above criticism of any kind" or something. Just as secretive and fucked up and insane as before, actually in some ways it's far sicker than it was ten years ago (deletionist patrollers completely control it now). But very few people want to discuss it seriously.
Very few people are. Anyone who has at least 10,000 edits or an admin bit will be "welcomed"--unless they say things Wee Billy and his friends don't like to hear. Quite a few "troublemakers" have been kicked out since the 2015-16 coup. Before that you had to really be overbearing to be banned, like Wikipedia Review before it.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:56 pmI don't think that's entirely right. I was never a welcome visitor at Wikipediocracy
No argument from me. I keep this forum going mostly as a public place to drop bad content and any atrocities we hear about. Plenty more is covered up or hidden anyway. This forum is really NOT that important, but then let's be honest, no website criticizing WP's inside crowd ever was. WPers have TOTAL contempt for anyone who objects to the way they operate their sick little private server farm/encyclo-thing.For me, Wikipediocracy and other similar sites, including this one in the past, are nothing to do with WP criticism at all, just a forum for slagging off unpopular editors without right of reply.
considering the part I bolded and underlined, And here is simple little truth on wikipedia itself the web "encyclopedia's" internal and external issues are not the most pressing social issue at alarge. When we are still having povetry, world hunger, wars and pandemic on going.ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:44 amVery few people are. Anyone who has at least 10,000 edits or an admin bit will be "welcomed"--unless they say things Wee Billy and his friends don't like to hear. Quite a few "troublemakers" have been kicked out since the 2015-16 coup. Before that you had to really be overbearing to be banned, like Wikipedia Review before it.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:56 pmI don't think that's entirely right. I was never a welcome visitor at Wikipediocracy
No argument from me. I keep this forum going mostly as a public place to drop bad content and any atrocities we hear about. Plenty more is covered up or hidden anyway. This forum is really NOT that important, but then let's be honest, no website criticizing WP's inside crowd ever was. WPers have TOTAL contempt for anyone who objects to the way they operate their sick little private server farm/encyclo-thing.For me, Wikipediocracy and other similar sites, including this one in the past, are nothing to do with WP criticism at all, just a forum for slagging off unpopular editors without right of reply.
Wikipediocracy started for similar reasons to this forum but is now more of a gossip rag for Wiki addicts. They embarrass themselves every day now. And won't admit as much.
Welcome to the "club". You are in considerable company, and having politically-conservative opinions is only one reason to toss people out of their forum. Wikipediocracy (WPU, WPO or WO if you like) is now an unofficial arm of the WMF. Even though a lot of Wiki insiders STILL hate it. Wee Billy/Zoloft wants to "keep them happy" so they will log into his shitty little forum and post something other than angry putdowns.Cla68 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:33 pmWPU is Wikipediocracy? I think I'm banned there. I wasn't getting along very well with the site's administrators and I was expecting to be banned at any moment. One day earlier this year or late last year I went to the site and couldn't post and assumed I was banned and have never returned.
Which no one will take seriously - unfortunately. Breitbart is too extremist and dedicated to political "spoilage". I advised TDA to start a blog or something else he can control, and he did post some material on Medium, but he wanted to get a bigger audience. I suspect his Breitbart articles are among the less-popular things on the site. Wikipedia is "too boring" as subjects go. Although he did post this today, and some of the 200-plus comments are kind of unintentionally hilarious. Par for the Breitbart course.Along the same lines, contemporary politics has affected criticism of Wikipedia. Note that currently one of the longest running series of criticisms of Wikipedia in the media is The Devil's Advocate's semi-regular column on Breitbart documenting the leftist control of certain topics and articles.
(2013?....)WatchingMedia • 6 hours ago
Wikipedia has been removing facts about major Democrats ever since Obama/Biden took Office in 2013.
They do not want anyone to know the truth.
They want to change history.