Giraffe Stapler unsurprisingly can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and an activist website

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Giraffe Stapler unsurprisingly can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and an activist website

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun May 23, 2021 11:42 am

What a tit this bloke is.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=11965
There are half a dozen Taliban flags on Commons. No one seems to have a problem with that.
What, exactly, would be the problem with that, you dumb cunt? Documenting noteworthy imagery is encyclopedic, even if many find it offensive.
But someone uploaded an image of the Taliban flag with a big red X on it. This is apparently not cool
Why would it be considered cool? What encyclopedic purpose does hosting such an image serve? Why do you think that expressing a personal dislike of the Taliban, is remotely the purpose of the Commons?

The truth here is of course that unlike Commons, Wikipedia and the Wikishits, and Giraffe Dick is in undoubtedly one of them (because what is Wikipediocracy if not a forum for senior Wikipedia editors?), have long ago forgotten that they are meant to be an encyclopedia, not a personal platform for pursuing their own agendas, no matter how sound or popular those views may be.

Wikipediocracy members like Wikipedia Administrator Ritchie333 would undoubtedly be horrified to learn that userboxes and user pages are not meant to be used for activism, as a sensible extension to the broader principles that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and is not your personal web host.

Guess who has uploaded many a self made picture of random protest placards to Commons, to be presented on Wikipedia articles as if they were in widespread cultural use? You guessed it. Not for nothing, did the Wikipedia community newsletter recently trumpet Wikipedia's ability to get such images taken up by the lazy media. An activist's wet dream. An encyclopedist's nightmare.

Giraffe bollock goes on to say.....
Commons is not sensible. There are tons of these things for use in userboxes. This user hates brussel sprouts. It's all fine and dandy until someone makes a userbox that pushes someone's buttons. There was a kerfuffle about "traditional marriage" userboxes a while ago. If I recall correctly, they all ended up getting deleted.

Someone ought to do a blog post about userboxes.
Ha ha.

I would be the logical person to write that blog post, because I was the only Wikipedia critic in the last few years, who seemed to even give a shit that Wikipedia editors were openly, proudly, displaying homophobic sentiments in their userboxes. Not the sort of thing that interests Wikipediocracy these days.

I am, of course, considerd to be crazy by Wikipediocracy, for making such sensible observations about the cult. And yet this was one area where Wikipedia quite happily got behind my criticism of that aspect of their warped activist culture, if only after seeing the huge potential for negative PR in allowing a non CNN sanctioned viewpoint on user pages, and so finally decided that yes, a user box that expresses support for traditional marriage, goes against everything Wikipedia tries to stand for, and what userboxes are nominally for.

1/2

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Giraffe Stapler unsurprisingly can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and an activist website

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun May 23, 2021 11:42 am

I laugh at such things being taken up by the wikishits, because of how common it still is to see userboxes proudly displaying a user's personal hatred of Donald Trump, for example. As if that were somehow not similarly problematic for the exact same reasons a pro-traditional marriage userbox is. Therein lies the rub. Activism is allowed on Wikipedia, as long as it is the right activism. As long as it's the sort of opinionated dribble you would see inserted into the middle of a "news" report on CNN.

Commons is yet again showing their clear difference to the corrupt mindset of the Wikishits, and so naturally, Wikipediocracy are upset, because theirs is a forum for senior Wikipedia editors, not, senior Commons editors.

It's such an obvious thing, the unacceptability of user made protest flags to Commons' basic mission, that even AndyTheGrump gets it. So you know it must be quite a simple concept.

Giraffe Donkey probably gets it himself, to be fair, he's simply just the sort of sad insecure bastard who thinks he might get cool points for posting any old anti-Commons shite on Wikipediocracy. Which he did, of course. Not for nothing does Beeblebrox consider himself part of the furniture of that place.
Well, I mean, if we're making "pointless crap" a deletion criteria at Commons then sure, delete it. And several million other things hosted there.
HA HA HA HA HA.

How much of Wikipedia's six million plus articles might be nothing but pointless crap?

Well, if we're judging that on the simple criteria of, is it referenced? Like, is there a single reference backing up anything said on this page? Any reference at all? That proportion is already, probably, in the "millions".

Got anything to say about that Beeblebrox, you useless bastard?

Thought not.

Good job Jake. Way to sell out.

Post Reply