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: 1 time

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:19 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:It's your assumptions leading you astray again. The content and location for the post were deliberately chosen to match the topic.

I don't think I suggested that the content and location had been chosen other than deliberately: but that the choice was sub-optimal and tended to make them ineffective. Still, it will doubtless be easy for you to refute my suggestion of ineffectuality, by stating now what the effect is that was intended and subsequently demonstrating that that intended effect did actually occur. As they say at Wimbledon, the ball is in your court.
There is nothing sub-optomal about it. It is in the right place and says the rights things to achieve the intended purpose, exposing the cowards of Wikipediocracy. Any impression that it doesn't achieve that, or fails to achieve some other objective, really only does arise from your own mistakes in reading it, or me.

I obviously won't be able to demonstrate the effect of a post written mere days ago, and it is incorrect to assume there would even be an observable effect, or that it is a case of one post achieves one outcome. But you already know that, because I told you so ages ago.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:54 pm

CrowsNest wrote:[...] it is incorrect to assume there would even be an observable effect[...]

I thought so all along, but was too polite to say so until now.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Sucks Fanatic
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:50 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:[...] it is incorrect to assume there would even be an observable effect[...]

I thought so all along, but was too polite to say so until now.

Well, that is hard to say. Wikipedia is rotten from the begin till the end, and is in many ways a fire pile. And one spark can lighten the whole dammed circus, so it is hard to predict it's useless. If one journalist, somewhere in the world, picks this up it can end up in a huge flame at the end....
We simple don't know who is reading here, that's the whole point.
Last edited by Graaf Statler on Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:09 pm

Indeed. And a journalist who reads a confused and confusing diatribe that conveys little except that the author is upset about the use of imperial rather than metric surveyors' units in articles on railways is going to go away thinking, "Well if that's all they can find to criticise, then everything must be basically OK in Wikipedia".

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:18 pm

AndrewForson wrote:Indeed. And a journalist who reads a confused and confusing diatribe that conveys little except that the author is upset about the use of imperial rather than metric surveyors' units in articles on railways is going to go away thinking, "Well if that's all they can find to criticise, then everything must be basically OK in Wikipedia".
I don't think a journalist would have the sort of difficulty you are having in parsing my thoughts on the content issue the post is based on. But a journalist won't even be reading it, because that wasn't the point of it. Basically, everything you have said about this post has been based on faulty assumptions, and yet you refuse to be corrected. A journalist might take from your behaviour, that Wikipedia critics are exactly as the Wikipedians portray them as. I am happy to say I am not.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:21 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:[...] it is incorrect to assume there would even be an observable effect[...]

I thought so all along, but was too polite to say so until now.
Why would it be impolite to agree with me? As ever, I don't think you're replying to what I have said, rather what you hope/think/assume I said.

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:18 pm

CrowsNest wrote:[...] and yet you refuse to be corrected.

In order to be corrected, or to refuse to be corrected, it is necessary to have been offered a correction. These tend to start "That's not right" but then continue with a word like "because" and go on to provide evidence, or logic, or both. CN seems to confuse such things with contradiction, and this confusion weakens whatever effect he is trying to have here.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:45 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:[...] and yet you refuse to be corrected.

In order to be corrected, or to refuse to be corrected, it is necessary to have been offered a correction. These tend to start "That's not right" but then continue with a word like "because" and go on to provide evidence, or logic, or both. CN seems to confuse such things with contradiction, and this confusion weakens whatever effect he is trying to have here.
You'll just keep talking crap no matter what, it seems to me. What's the effect you are aiming for?

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

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by AndrewForson » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:23 pm

CrowsNest wrote:What's the effect you are aiming for?

In general: providing commentary that tends to explain and evidence the corruption inherent in Wikipedia. In this particular case: showing possible ways of organising critical commentary so as to make it more effective. Oh, and making it clear to you, yes I mean you, CrowsNest, that you don't get your own way over everything just by being more bad-tempered than some of the other critics.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The cowards of Wikipediocracy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:24 pm

Returning to the most recent sub-topic......
AndyTheGimp wrote:The East Croydon Station article now says "10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) ". Which would look like a sensible compromise.
To who? It doesn't help gimps like Andy, who doesn't know what a chain is, much less know if a single chain is the same order of precision as 0.01 miles or km. It certainly doesn't help the people who know what a chain is. It doesn't help general readers either, for whom that level of precision in this context is totally unnecessary. And as previously said, it doesn't satisfy policy.

What this looks like, is a kludge. Wikipediots like kludges. Wikipediocracy likes Wikipediots.

Post Reply