The cowards of Wikipediocracy

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
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 12:56 pm

Yes, and when you say this in a pedia surrounding you are SanFanBan trolled out at the end. Because they have the crazy mind set Pedia is overruling every regulation world wide because:.... Pedia is a human right, WMF legal will safe them, what of course never happens because they never can win form national and European regulations, Romaine will fix it with his big, fat mouth and his Wikimedia BE and big fat money wasting Bruxsel meetings, They will advocate the free source ideology, etc.

And if you don't get what you want you always have your fine abitroll comité, because of course you don't agree like our friend AndyTheGrump and you go on till the end, the iceberg you mention, Andrew. Because that is of course where it ends up.
Or we have our cheerleader Maher, personal selected by Jimmy with here safe California heaven and fuckt checkers, what apert to be a bunch of losers and gamers like our Andy.

It's a huge scandal what they are doing, and that is what it is! It's a complete disrespect for democratic nations!

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 » Sat May 26, 2018 6:45 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:I suspect that the WMF would rely on the exemptions provided under article 85 of the GDPR, for "journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression": https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/

As to the extent that the courts would consider this valid, I have no idea, though I suspect that courts might be reluctant to get into debates about what is or isn't 'journalism' etc.
Pulled straight out of his ass.

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 » Sat May 26, 2018 8:05 pm

Jesus Christ.

AndyTheGrump wrote:Wikilawyering doesn't work in actual courts.
I guess we can add 'what happens in a court', to the list of things this fuckwit doesn't have a clue about.

On the nominal point he is disagreeing with, I think we can all accept that a real lawyer in an actual court would find it quite easy to convince a judge that WP:NOTNEWS is pretty good evidence Wikipedia isn't in the business of journalism.

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 » Sun May 27, 2018 8:25 am

CrowsNest wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:I suspect that the WMF would rely on the exemptions provided under article 85 of the GDPR, for "journalistic purposes or the purpose of academic artistic or literary expression": https://gdpr-info.eu/art-85-gdpr/

As to the extent that the courts would consider this valid, I have no idea, though I suspect that courts might be reluctant to get into debates about what is or isn't 'journalism' etc.
Pulled straight out of his ass.

European judges doesn't like "clever tricks". Everybody who has even been in a European court knows they are slow, boring and highly professional, it's not LA Law. You felt half way into sleep. AndryTheGrump is just a foolish person who is talking out of the wrong end, a snow flock like you call it, not worth to listen to. I don't read there anymore and don't understand Professor Zoloft is allowing this kind of stupide babbling. Because it can confuse other people and I am wondring if his students are telling the same bullshit.

Wikipedia is filled up with AndryTheGrumps. Probably someone who is cleaning the tables in a restaurant or cleaning the dishes in the kitchen or the toilet there and who is a European legal adviser in the wiki mouvement. And really, my education is from the same level, but there is always the possibility to ask something to a expert, what Whaledad and I did on Wikiquote. What made Romaine crazy, our man in Bussel, Belgic.
Google professors, that is what they are. They don't know a single thing of a subject, they start to google a bit around, impress there friends from the same level, convince them they are a expert, and that is the reason the whole wiki mouvement is one big legal fireball and running out of every legalisation in Europe at the moment.

They even don't know Europe has a total other legal system. I think they can't tell you even where Holland is situated on a map, they situate Holland in the middle of China. And it's complete clear to me the WMF staff is from the same level. WMF legal hasn't have single clue about European regulation. They think the complete foolish Romaine can open a office in Brussel and solve the problems in the European parlement by lobbying. They even don't know Europe isn't a country, not even a federation. They only know where the sink is in the restaurant is where they are washing the dishes.

And these are Maher's fuckt checkers. Or people with a mental problem who believe everything someone is saying, or complete foolish gamers. Or complete naive very friendly people who believe the Wiki professors. Or people who understand there is a place on this world where you can get free lunches. Close your eyes and ears and nose, troll yourself into heaven, and fill your pockets. And that is what the wiki mouvement really is. One big chaos filled up with AnyTheGrump's as a expert.

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 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:Selecting 'simple' articles at random suggests to me that the language isn't much 'simpler' anyway. Or if it is, it is only because the 'simple' encyclopaedia fails to adequately explain things properly.
Look at this prick, pretending like he can handle having things explained to him.
AndyTheGrump wrote:
Poetlister wrote:The main use of Simple Wikipedia is as a haven for people expelled from the mother ship.
Certainly looks that way.
Says the guys who routinely fail to recognise the most basic of things about the Wikipedia ecosystem. You'd be wasting your time even asking these cowards to expand on these beliefs, and they most certainly wouldn't even try if you did, because it is just so much horseshit. Just two sad fucks copying what they've seen the cool kids of Wikipedia say when trying to be mean to their annoying little brothers.

Zoloft is nowhere to be seen. Quite right too. I'd be embarrassed as well.

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 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:20 am

Ming wrote:Verifying town/village/etc. articles is a largely thankless and usually fruitless task. There are lots of third world dumped-from-some-map or the like places which won't verify from the air, but it's usually impossible to delete them.
Said in a thread discussing a case of a US place, where "dumped from.....or the like" refers to the mass importation of an official USGS database. It very likely does exist on the map, you just need the right coordinates. If you have those, the only possible reason that it would fail aerial verification now, is if in the nearly forty years since this place was entered into that database, the population has move out and razed their buildings behind them.

Just another example of the random fuckwittery to be found on Wikipediocracy, as the cowards who can't deal with being disagreed with engage in their brain dead wittering sessions.

There are valid criticisms of Wikipedia to be found here. Not one of them was unearthed in their thread though. Which is unsurprising, given who started it.....
AndyTheGrump wrote:The average Wikipedia contributor may not be the brightest of sparks, but handing over the creation of new infobox maps to a bot, and then not checking the results, seems unwise.
Really? Surely the idiotic part of the equation here was in assuming a single official database can ever be 100% reliable, or that Wikipedia needs articles for every place it contains. Bright sparks indeed. They seem to be just as thick as you. But then again, you are just a disgruntled Wikpedian who would be straight back to the project if they just made some minor tweaks, like presumably spending a quadrillion man-hours to error check US govt. databases after mass importation.

There was at least an upside for readers, because undoubtedly "impossible to delete" is true in this case. So have cookie for uncovering that gem of wisdom, Mr. Mong and Mr. Grump.

Quite the sight to see Jake trying to steer these morons into fruitful observational territory, and worse trying to stop Bebblebrox dragging it completely off topic. You're wasting your time, and you know it. Just be a man and admit you banned the wrong person. Or that you like spending your days interacting with retards, and having other people think you value their presence and respect their opinion, for your supposed Wikiepdia criticism site. Beeblebrox certainly doesn't care that he is dragging that thread off topic, because he has absolutely no respect for you or your supposed mission. He does rather like it that you let him come over and do what he does on Wikipedia to your members, with your apparent blessing.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Dysklyver » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:27 am

CrowsNest wrote:
Ming wrote:Verifying town/village/etc. articles is a largely thankless and usually fruitless task. There are lots of third world dumped-from-some-map or the like places which won't verify from the air, but it's usually impossible to delete them.
Said in a thread discussing a case of a US place, where "dumped from.....or the like" refers to the mass importation of an official USGS database. It very likely does exist on the map, you just need the right coordinates. If you have those, the only possible reason that it would fail aerial verification now, is if in the nearly forty years since this place was entered into that database, the population has move out and razed their buildings behind them.


Very astute, but of course no-one wants to find the right coords. And the whole thing is set to get worse with mass use of Wikidata coords in the "new" maps.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.

User avatar
Cruizir
Sucks Noob
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Cruizir » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:31 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Ming wrote:Verifying town/village/etc. articles is a largely thankless and usually fruitless task. There are lots of third world dumped-from-some-map or the like places which won't verify from the air, but it's usually impossible to delete them.
Said in a thread discussing a case of a US place, where "dumped from.....or the like" refers to the mass importation of an official USGS database. It very likely does exist on the map, you just need the right coordinates. If you have those, the only possible reason that it would fail aerial verification now, is if in the nearly forty years since this place was entered into that database, the population has move out and razed their buildings behind them.


Very astute, but of course no-one wants to find the right coords. And the whole thing is set to get worse with mass use of Wikidata coords in the "new" maps.


...partially true. At least Wikidata could fix adding bogus coords to certain wikis and correct ones to others

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 Jun 22, 2018 7:38 pm

Poetlister wrote:Evidently, not allowing a banned user to contribute is regarded as more important than improving a work of reference.
There is a clunky workaround they use to square this circle, one that mischievous critics could exploit to waste their time, and media connected critics could use to generate bad PR. But I don't suppose learning about such things is considered important to this dickhead. Far more interested in defending the fuckwits of Wikipedia usually, his criticism typically being out of date if not completely trite stuff like this.

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 Jun 22, 2018 7:58 pm

Cruizir wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:Very astute, but of course no-one wants to find the right coords. And the whole thing is set to get worse with mass use of Wikidata coords in the "new" maps.


...partially true. At least Wikidata could fix adding bogus coords to certain wikis and correct ones to others
It's well known that crowdsourcing is a highly efficient way of error checking huge datasets like this. But why on Earth is it automatically assumed by Wikipediots, and the cowards of Wikipediocracy, that directly editing coordinates on Wikipedia (or Wikidata) is the means to do that? The source of the error is the US govt. Any error correction effort needs to correct that dataset, and ensure the exposure of the data at Wikipedia (or Wikidata) is read only. Wikipediots, and their cowardly Wikipediocrat cousins, don't understand any of this. They're monkies bashing at typewriters for reasons they cannot comprehend.

Post Reply