dark energy
matters: leapin' llama's
liquefaction!
"Wikipedia Loves (Stolen) Art"
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 5145
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1373 times
- Been thanked: 2118 times
Re: "Wikipedia Loves (Stolen) Art"
This is only the beginning. I suspect it will end with Riess being banned.Jake Is A Sellout wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:53 pmhttps://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 16&t=12275
It seems Hemenchuia is OK with this kind of removal because the material in question allegedly comes from "deniers" who are pushing a "fringe" theory, which ties into Wikishits broader delusion that somehow they're the Guardians of the One True Science. A far more Nobel goal than the simple act of making sure you don't let Wikipedia claim an artist is a fraud based on "sources" who quote "sources" (a.k.a, gossip).
Maybe I should send him a copy of the book wiki, so he will have a better grasp of why "Dear Wikipedia" letters, and begging and pleading, and even PROVABLE FACTS, are useless when dealing with WP patroller/deletionist insiders. Being RIGHT is worthless.
-
Jake Is A Sellout
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
- Been thanked: 113 times
Re: "Wikipedia Loves (Stolen) Art"
Regarding the general wisdom of picking Hemenchuia to represent your blog, saying shit like "I don't care about your opinion" definitely seems to be a pattern for him.
He did the same thing in the edit war behind this artist dispute (which only makes it sound less likely the reason he chose to omit mention of his involvement was that "it distracted from the narrative, and wasn't really of any consequence").
It sounds more like he simply didn't want people to know he wasn't exactly qualified to be speaking on the topic of what is wrong with Wikipedia.
This is no theoretical. If the implication of his piece is that Wikipedia needs more editors so that problems like this can be prevented (which, as already pointed out, is horseshit, nothing about this incident suggests unawareness was the issue), then he should take note of all the studies and the Wikipedia policies that say a major reason people don't get involved, is because they find the working environment unattractive.
Hemenchuia is part of the problem.
You get shit in your paint, you can't make a masterpiece. Modern art excepted.
He did the same thing in the edit war behind this artist dispute (which only makes it sound less likely the reason he chose to omit mention of his involvement was that "it distracted from the narrative, and wasn't really of any consequence").
It sounds more like he simply didn't want people to know he wasn't exactly qualified to be speaking on the topic of what is wrong with Wikipedia.
This is no theoretical. If the implication of his piece is that Wikipedia needs more editors so that problems like this can be prevented (which, as already pointed out, is horseshit, nothing about this incident suggests unawareness was the issue), then he should take note of all the studies and the Wikipedia policies that say a major reason people don't get involved, is because they find the working environment unattractive.
Hemenchuia is part of the problem.
You get shit in your paint, you can't make a masterpiece. Modern art excepted.