The cowards of Wikipediocracy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Fri May 04, 2018 12:21 pm

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 06#p218206
Jake wrote:Anybody who wants to feed us whatever false-equivalency bullshit they've designed to assuage their pampered-white-boy guilt or justify their racist cultural inferiority complex can do it on a website they own.
Fine words. Doesn't mean much when you happily provide a platform on the website you do own for screechy libtards who see alt-right demons everywhere. Is that little bitch Ming or so called journalist Dan Murphy ever going to find the balls to come here and defend their own false equivalency? Or are you ever going to allow me the right of reply on your website?

I didn't fucking think so. Get the fuck out of here with this shit.

Yours, the so called Hitler apologist.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Fri May 04, 2018 12:46 pm

Jake is on big joke who is only pampering wikiidiots. I said it many times before, they are running a extension of Wikipedia Village pump, a place to recover for overstressed gamers.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Fri May 04, 2018 1:43 pm

Agreed, but I see a clear difference between the gravity of his approach in how welcoming and tolerant they should be of assorted Wikieodiots and their fuckwittery, and him misrepresenting their site's tolerance of things like false equivalency. That might just be him trying to make the place seem more attractive to people like NewYorkBrad and all the other Wikibastards who only post there when it is convenient for them. Then again, he might be trying to portray people like us and The Devil's Advocate and indeed anyone they have previously exiled due to the complaints of whiny little bitches like Ming, as if we really are clueless idiots whose supposed ignorance of the ways of Wikipedia is only matched by our supposed love of Trump and Hitler.

He needs to be careful, lest the people he does seem to value over us, reveal just how uninterested they really are in long term incisive criticism of Wikipedia, preferring instead to concentrate on their interest in the other things they seem to believe are far more important, like chasing alt-right bogey men and defending Wikipedia's honourable attempts to #Resist by any means necessary. Much like he has been guilty of himself. The Wikipediots certainly have no use for or indeed fear of a ghost forum which is merely theoreatically known for its rejection of poor critical analysis (and whose historical love of people like Carrite and Ming undermines that claim).

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Mon May 07, 2018 8:46 am

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 7&start=50
http://archive.is/UvkhO
Jake wrote:It's OK to be conservative, maybe even a little prejudiced on occasion, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. It's also OK to insult left-wingers, tedious though that may be, as long as you don't insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. I know it's harder for hardcore Trumpists, but it should leave most of our right-wing friends plenty of room to operate, no...?
Um.......I'm so moderately UK Conservative, I'd probably be considered a centrist Democrat. And even I got no protection the shreiking libtards of your website. If this is your intended 'atmos', tell your fucking moderator. His name is Tarantino (the guy who is going to memory hole all your fine words on this issue, as off-topic)
Jake wrote:But what people (including yourself, apparently) fail to note here is that when she used the phrase "basket of deplorables" in reference to "about half" of Trump's support base, she didn't realize that most of the people she was referring to were not people at all, in the sense of "We The People," but rather a collection of Russian bots, troll-farm workers, and underemployed neo-Nazis. At that time, it wasn't even all that clear that the term "alt-right" was basically a neo-Nazi sanitizer-label. You can certainly criticize Hillary Clinton for not knowing that, but then you'd have to similarly criticize about 98 percent of all Americans in general at that time. (I'd like to think I myself was in the other 2 percent, but I'll freely admit I had no idea how extensive the whole thing was, at least at that point.)
........
And again, it should not be necessary for me or anyone else to point this out. Anyone with half a brain should understand this.
It shouldn't need pointing out that at the time she said it, the literal interpretation of "half of Trump's supporters" equated to 22% of all Americans, if polls were to be believed (that's 71 million people), or nearly 4 million if you take the view a Trump supporter at that time has to be someone who registered a view in a primary. The fact the popular vote saw him take nearly 63 million, shows which figure was closer to the truth.

These are the facts Jake. It's the screechers you protect in your Safe Space, who are peddling falshoods.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon May 07, 2018 10:21 am

It's all bull Jack is saying, he is just covering his ass. I am absolute not interested in American politics or mister Trumph, don't even want to think or to talk about Hitler, the second world war or Israel because of my black family background, wrote only on WP-NL about Dutch windmills, LGB toytrains, and unimportant Greek politics and Greek villages, am trolled out and........... I am mute on Wikipediocrazy. Because the gamers got upset you know.
So, a mute there has nothing to do with the things you mention. Wikipediocrazy is a kind of opposition board like they have in North Korea and that kind of country's. It's a propaganda board. Look, our regime allows critic! But only the critic we like.

User avatar
Auggie
Sucks
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:10 am

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Auggie » Mon May 07, 2018 6:25 pm

haha good thread guys. :lol:

I can't believe Jokey is relying on Tarantino to cover up his mess.

What a wuss.

Even Zoloft would venture off-site now and then.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon May 07, 2018 11:20 pm

One day you start to understand they are all the same mad and Wikipedia is a believe. Nothing is logical, it's a other dimension. It's even stupid to try to understand Wikipedia and much of there critical because it is a complete wasting of time, it's a kind of logica from a other world. And they seems to understand the logica, but you not. Or at least they act like they understand it because that is attractive, much more attractive than to say the empire is naked. And at the moment you understand that you understand Wikipedia.

Look, if enough people start to say pink flying elephants exist at the end pink flying elephants exist. That is the Wiki-system, the secret is the enormous amount of people who are wiki believers and are defending the system. Because of that reason people start to believe what in theory is impossible in practice is possible. Pink elephants can fly, look there. They let them fly. Really? Yes, look how populair that project is. Wikipedia is a kind of self fulfilling prophesy, it is there only because it's there. That is the only reason it exist, an not because it's logical. And that is the reason on Wikipediocrazy they keep on claiming pink elephants can fly, although it's complete nonsense. Because almost everybody in this world is saying and believing pink elephants can fly, so it's true.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 15, 2018 12:36 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:Personally, I see no particular reason to support a nebulous concept like a 'right to be forgotten'. There are many public actions carried out by individuals that don't deserve to be 'forgotten', and such 'rights' are likely to only ever benefit those with the most economic and/or political clout.
What a surprise, yet another issue he doesn't have the first clue about.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue May 15, 2018 9:18 am

Good pick Crow. The only question what remains is why is Zoloft and Jack are giving this idiot a podium, and is muting us. Because that's the same on WP-NL. People who should known better seen there social position start to act like imbeciles. dr. Michel, Adminsitrator and former Arbitrator, dr. Casper also a assistent professor on a Dutch university and a sysop and Arb, and professor Zoloft who are trolling themself into heaven. I am mute and blocked wherever I can, including Guido's Wikisage by a wikimedia gender woman. So, something is wrong in the base of the wiki world and I want to know what is going on. And for sure after that Ymnes cult, a autistic boy with temper tantrums who had to be pampered where he could, even with trolling me out with the famous SanFanBan. And the last Ymnes pamper action of a few days ago was beyond trolling, it was complete foolish. Three CU's before he good what he wanted, it was compleet clear he was that sock himself, and a kiss on his d**k from one on the lady's in the form of a star!

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Tue May 15, 2018 11:14 am

Andy G.'s position is sadly typical of Wikipedians. They hold that the things they don't like (other people's privacy, other people's copyright, etc.) ought not to apply to them, and hence don't apply to them. The reason to "support" the right to be forgotten is that a legitimate process has chosen to take that balance between privacy and freedom of speech. In a democracy you "support" the will of the people, in the sense that you accept that it is the law and get on with it -- that doesn't mean you have to agree with it, it doesn't mean you don't campaign against it and try to get the democratic process to have it changed in ways you think better, it doesn't mean you don't deliberately flout the law in a campaign of civil disobedience and take the consequences, but it does mean you don't just pretend it isn't there or that magically it doesn't apply to you. To take the view that the right to be forgotten somehow doesn't apply to Wikimedia projects is simply to store up trouble later on. Of course, some of us look forward to the train wreck when Wikipedia is banned in the whole of the EU and the WMF is fined 10% of its turnover by the Commission.

Post Reply