Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Dysklyver » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:42 am

CrowsNest wrote:I think we're just confusing each other. The question is, did he hide both GW's block of herself and Fram's block of GW, or just GW's self block? I can't believe it was the former, but her blog can be read that way. I see nothing in the links that definitely settles it either way, although it certainly seems like they are talking only about the self-block. Then again, it looks like Callanecc had to undo four log events (1,1,2), which could be Guy's self block, GW's self-block, and the Fram block/Fuzheado unblock pair.


To be honest I don't know, it's impossible to tell after the event exactly what they covered up.

Not sure if anyone knows except those involved in the cover up and subsequent un-coverup.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Paul Bedson wrote:It is annoying. But I try to return the annoyance in overly enthusiastic and happy posts at Ming and AndyTheGrump so they get annoyed in equal measure to my own annoyance at their aversion to change and new ideas. As long as you keep it light hearted and non-abusive over there, it's fine. You can get some good digs in.
You'd be surprised. Andy and Ming are whiny little bitches. If they can't directly stop you from making them sad/mad, they'll be in Jake's ear constantly, demanding he do something. And he'll do it, he'll do anything to keep the mixed bag of assholes, retards and fanboys he calls his most respected members nice and comfortable in the clubhouse. That is the site's primary purpose after all. On the basic level of human interaction, the place is a Wikipedia clone. The likes of you are never truly equal, you're always going to be considered a tolerated guest at most, a plaything at worst. It's borrowed time. Time you will likely live to regret. And needless to say, spending your time only promoting Everipedia, that's as sure to get you banned there was it would at Wikipedia. They're not interested in your opinion, your experience, because it contradicts their fanboy fantasy world view, where Wikipedia is a fantastic invention, that would work if only it was just changed the way they want it changed. Andy wants Wikipedia to respect retards like him, special status for the special needs kids. Ming wants with to be, well, he must be pretty happy with how it all works now, a haven for arrogant partisans who think their opinions are indistinguishable from the truth, so why he is even a critic is a mystery. He is likely a deeply committed Wikipedian who just visits the site to chill out between heavy editing sessions. It is easy to toy with these people, but it is ultimately a waste of time. As the saying goes, wrestling with pigs......

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:55 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:I think we're just confusing each other. The question is, did he hide both GW's block of herself and Fram's block of GW, or just GW's self block? I can't believe it was the former, but her blog can be read that way. I see nothing in the links that definitely settles it either way, although it certainly seems like they are talking only about the self-block. Then again, it looks like Callanecc had to undo four log events (1,1,2), which could be Guy's self block, GW's self-block, and the Fram block/Fuzheado unblock pair.


To be honest I don't know, it's impossible to tell after the event exactly what they covered up.

Not sure if anyone knows except those involved in the cover up and subsequent un-coverup.
Indeed. If he did try to just sweep Fram's block under the carpet, based on some half remembered consensus, which is likely a lie anyway, it would be a big deal, something they'd absolutely want to keep obscured. In the real world, obvious fuck ups like that by people in positions of trust would be publicly reported, so that lessons can be learned and the screw-up can be dealt with properly. In this case it would likely lead to a systematic review to see what else he's been doing from memory, or rather simply because he can and wanted to. But Wikipedia is not the real world, it's just a private webstie, as they love telling everything whenever their fuck ups are discovered.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Graaf Statler » Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:12 pm

I have tried to tell GW a few times if you are swinging in the Wikipedia sewer you get dirty, but Jake don't want that. Or that it ruin your reputation for ever just like what happend with our own Drmies. The human feces will for always stick in your hair and behind your ears, and you can't wash it off, because the internet is the best memory of this world. And even if you don't put your real name on your user page there is always, always a former comradsky willing to doxx you.
it is just a professional risk of sewer cowling, that is all. And it leads to nothing, because Wikipedia will never improve the position of woman and minority's, the wiki system will never check facts in a proper way, because the system is far to primitive therefore. So, the GW's and Drmiesen (Dutch plural) have to learn to live with there wiki past what always will haunt them. For ever and ever. It should be wise to leave wikipedia and to find a better goal in there life of them. Rescuing cat's is a great start, but there are more very noble goals.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:08 pm

Eric Corbett wrote:The obvious explanation of why someone would use a real name rather than a user name, assuming that the real name has already been revealed as in this case, is that they considered themselves to be on friendlier terms with that person than the others mentioned by user name.
Perhaps. Are you offering up any reasons to think that this would be the case, given the others mentioned were Ritchie333, Joe Roe, Boing! said Zebedee & Ad Orientem?

The more obvious explanation is the one I've already given. None of them are (known to be) women. And indeed, only Boing! has kept his real name a secret. I find it hard to believe Kupdung is so friendly with GW he takes the time to deliberately pipe her username to her real name, but doesn't give Richard or John the same honour. And Joe must feel like a right prat, since he must never be able tell if people are using his real name because they consider him a good friend.

The ferret fucker himself is a good example of why this theory is unsound. There was many a time I saw people like Ritchie refer to Eric by his previous username. There was no need for it, and plenty of potential to cause confusion, and Eric couldn't have been clearer he wanted to be referred to by his real name from then on. Yet I don't recall him objecting. Indeed I think one of his friends even reacted quite strongly when it was suggested by a well meaning bystander who perhaps didn't know who was who in Eric's little gang, that the polite thing to do was address him by his current username, not his former one.

Why did they do it? For the obvious reason that they were doing it out of affection. They were doing so because in their tiny male brains, being able to signal you have known Eric for a long time, you are somehow a more powerful individual than your opponent, someone who should be feared if they come around threatening to get their old pal Mallues involved in your dispute.

For not so different reasons, that is exactly why Kupdung chose to signal he knew a girl on Wikipedia, and he knew her very well. I'd be surprised if he knew her better than Ritchie, Boing or John. I'd be surprised if any of them considered him a freind, not in the real sense.


User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm

Carrite posted my questions to GW. The answers reveal what I have suspected all along. She's checked out. Ironic, since relentless criticism and ceaseless undermining from the likes of Carrite is probably the reason why.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 37#p224737

Having previously been a significant force for change and an inspiring leader for others less powerful, albeit still hamstrung by the numbers and environment, she's just drifting around the wiki now, doing what she likes, just like every other drone. She claims she was not particularly offended by Kupdung's reaction to her reasonable request, which I doubt is the real truth.

She's not going to do anything about it, attempting to brush it off as just another time someone was rude to her on the internet, rather than a remarkable example of the ingrained hostile environment for women on Wikipedia, from a high profile editor who claims to be a feminist, no less. Oh, but she will say something if she sees him post misogynist comments again. But she won't be specifically following him.

The chances of him saying something similar seems remote. Not because he will have learnt from the experience and reflected, committed to changing his behaviour. Rather simply because it seems unlikely anyone else will even dare challenge him if he ever does something so obviously sexist again.

Hilariously, she says Kupdung seems to have dropped any issues he has with her, so that excuses her dropping the issue too. She must think people are blind, or stupid. We can see what he has done. Thrown a tantrum, claimed to be the victim of bullying, and gone off in a sulk, claiming to be too infirm and too afraid of having his block log ruined, to even think of challenging the "wild insinuations" he feels subjected to. All in the apparent hope the community decides who was in the right. As they appear to have done.

It's all so.......pathetic.

She objects to being cast as the token women of ArbCom, although I can see no other way to describe the fact that at the last election, despite all their admirable work, two women stood down, to be replaced by the only two women standing, like them getting a seat from a slate of eight viable candidates for eight women was even in doubt. The token quota stable, they are sadly looking even less willing or capable of changing Wikipedia, challenging the status quo.

As we've seen before, she justifies stepping down because she felt she had to prioritise her real life, as if history hasn't shown the Committee has no issue with having males on it who are unavailable for days at a time, or who simply go inactive with nobody having a clue if or when they will return. They clearly have no issue with people not having the time to properly study cases, indeed there is no such obligation to do so if you are not the drafter. Similarly, there is no obligation for emails to be responded to in a timely fashion, if at all. They have fifteen people precisely for that reason. It is a role with precisely zero specification laid out as to how much time you are expected to devote, or any other minimum performance criteria. Jesus Christ, they let Drmies do the job, and if you think he prioritised it at all, in any way, you clearly don't know the man.

Anyway, it's an answer. So now you know, women of Wikipedia. The situation is as it was many years ago - just keep your heads down and your opinions to yourself. Under no circumstances are you to make a male editor feel uncomfortable by pulling them up on their casual sexism, much less overt mysogyny. You definitely cannot criticise any powerful man who claims to be your friend and ally. Know. Your. Place.

It took 148 posts, but they got there in the end. No need to thank me Jake. You just keep on trying to persuade her she was in the wrong, give her tips on how to ensure people like Kupdung are not made to feel uncomfortable or on the defensive. We wouldn't want that, not us Wikipedia critics.

This has been a public service message of HTD Inc. Take heed.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:22 am

This shit is BORING.
That's Beeblebrox trying desperately hard to try and hide the fact he is FREAKING THE FUCK OUT that Wikipediocracy is talking about Everipedia.

It was a well chosen statement though. It isn't like people would be shocked to see a Wikipedian react to something they find boring by asking for it to be removed from view. They're not normal people, so normal things like JUST NOT READING STUFF YOU FIND BORING doesn't occur to them.

But not this time. No, he is finding this anything but boring.

I'm sure Jake will be along soon, and will dutifully see to the needs of his darling Wikipedians. Can't upset the precious. Must serve the precious. Have to be good fanboys.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:24 am

Right on cue....
No, they're right, this thread really is spam. The other ones aren't so bad, but this one is over the so-called "line."

I'm not saying don't start other threads involving Everipedia if something happens to warrant one, and I won't delete it (yet), but I would think this particular case is just common sense.
Someone really should tell Jake that for people who aren't running a website for fans of Wikipedia, there is no common sense to be found here. All that they will find is a thread announcing Everipedia won an award, some Wikipedians having a massive cry, and him giving in. Worse, pretending like he's owed something for not deleting it.

How much are you being paid by the Foundation to suppress information like this, Jake? That far-fetched claim which has been circulating on the internet doesn't sound so far fetched now, does it?

Seriously, what did you really have to gain from this aggressive act? An act familiar to anyone who studies the ways and means the Wikipedia community uses to control what people think. You can't seriously believe Carrite or Beeblebrox would ever leave Wikioediocracy over something so trivial. Where would they even go? I can't see anywhere else in the critic space that two such devoted fans of the cult would be welcome, not without major changes in their behaviour. But what do you stand to lose? At the bare minimum, future updates on the progress of Everipedia, as far as I can tell.

Sounds like a fucking dumb move for someone running a Wikipedia criticism site. Makes perfect sense for someone running a club house for people like Carrite and Beeblebrox.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:54 am

My question was serious. Is there anyone who can tell me more about this award, and it seems to me a normal question and has nothing to do with spam. And I think everyone who has read what happend to me on Wikipedia can understand I am cautious and it is complete unclear why it was such a bad question. I had never heart of the project till Paul came in, I am because of several reasons still not active there. It seems to be getting one of the forbidden subjects, otherwise the Wikipedians start to cry.

Till the day of today I still don't understand where the scram and the huge risico for the users is. You can edit just like you can on Wikipedia, and you can buy, OK, for 20 euro play money. One the two. If it was a computer game nobody should care or speak of a ponzi. Twenty Euro! Yesterday I was in the supermark for the weekend. 67 euro lady's and gentleman. 65 euro at the petrol station. And on Wikipedia I have seen in all that years banners with give me your money, the price of a cup of coffee is fine. And if you had a closer look the minimum was 10 euro, till 100 euro in the pay screen. Time after time, year after year. So, where is the ponzi? At Everipedia, or on wikipedia where those thiefs time after time put a banner above MY work?

Post Reply