View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:16 am




Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
The cowards of Wikipediocracy 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
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.


Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
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.


Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:54 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
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.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Last edited by Graaf Statler on Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:50 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
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".


Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
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.


Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
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.


Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:21 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
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.


Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
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?


Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:45 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
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.


Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
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.


Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:24 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.