Wikipediocracy sells out another serious critic
Posted: 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.
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.