Wikipedia Sucks!

What a dick this guy is. Says a lot that the Wikipediocracy staff feel he is someone to be protected, not held to account.

He just said this today.....

Another fallacy is that the gender imbalance necessarily creates a content bias. Would having more female editors have affected the articles on prominent women such as Queen Victoria or Hillary Clinton? Would it increase the number of articles on female professors?

There have literally been studies which show exactly this damaging effect - articles do get written differently, and the number of articles on certain topics is affected, because of Wikipedia's gender problem.

Now, Poetlister does have a tendency to run his mouth off and speak authoratively about things he clearly hasn't researched, things which are easily debunked (which sends him into coward mode, and sees the staff rush to protect him).

However, what I think is more likely here, given he must be aware of those studies, is that he knows fine well what he just said is wrong, but he is only saying it to troll people who disagree.

Wikipediocracy has a very poor record of retaining members who do know what they're talking about re. the gender gap, and conversely, they have a bad habit or retaining and even encouraging those Wikipediots who believe things like this are indeed fallacies.

Why does he do it? Who knows. Perhaps he's bored. Perhaps he just loves provoking people. Perhaps there's something deeper here, given his past of pretending to be women.

Poetlister learned nothing at all from his debacle years ago. He likes being the "pot calling the kettle black." He's narcissistic, vain, hypocritical, and psychopathic. Even if they try to ban him, he always finds a way to circumvent IP bans. He's wearying. At least, Heath Ledger's "The Joker" was entertaining.

And he's one of the few on WR/WPO who's made me snap. You can tell, can't you?

I find him simply irritating, there are worse people who do worse things there, however it is perhaps his ever-present nature which perhaps means he is just as bad as their worst. Casliber for example, he's a real piece of shit, genuinely seemed to think he could intimidate me and bullshit me, but his craven Wikipedia addiction means he can only seem to pop into the forum once a week.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 05#p217105

Jake wrote:I don't mean to be unduly critical here, PL, since overall you're doing a fine job and we do appreciate the time and effort you're putting into it... but if you've got some sort of "bar for inclusion" set up to help you decide what news items to post and what not to post, I'm thinking you might want to raise it just a little bit so that articles like this one come in just beneath it...?

Wait, what? They think he's putting effort into it? How much effort does it take to post a link and extract a small quote? I often find myself having to click the story just to figure out what it's about, which surely defeats the entire point of these posts.

And it's not like he's going out and finding them himself - they have an RSS feed set up on their front page. Original Wikipedia Review is a dead forum now, but if you go look, they have a bot still running which basically does what Poetlister is doing. Which says it all as far as his supposed effort goes.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=23

And as I pointed out recently (and hilariously, he immediately began to change his approach) his habit of posting a new thread for each story, even in cases where they're stories on the same issue or theme, was beyond stupid.

I miss Mancunium. He was great making the newsposts, even if he did go overboard with the mass quoting and claimed to be a royal prince. Seriously.

What a gimp.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 36#p217136

I think we can see more or less the full spectrum of opinion on here from the most pro to the most anti Wikipedia. It gives us all plenty to consider, as long as people are good-tempered.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 35#p217135

A range of views is welcome. If everyone had exactly the same viewpoint, what sort of fruitful interchange of views could there be?

Does he genuinely believe the way he participates on that board embodies these posts? Or is he just trolling? I guess the heart of the issue is that it doesn't matter what the answer is, both behaviours are toxic for a forum.

Sure, he doesn't lose his temper, and that may indicate he's driven by the desire to troll, but the smart people of this world will appreciate there are many more ways to destroy the chances of a "fruitful exchange" than that. Many of which Poetlister does with tedious regularity.

The WMF has gone out of its way to facilitate commercial use of Wikipedia such as selling articles as books by refusing to allow CC-ND and CC-NC. Why did they do that? So that one day Wikipedia could be sold off as a commercial product?

More gimpness. How thick do you have to be to not realise why the WMF disallowed ND/NC? They're not in the selling an encyclopedia business, they're in the securing donations business.

The fastest way to do that was to establish the brand/mythology, and the fastest way to do that was to give Wikipedia away for free and maximise how people can reuse it. For that, disallowing NC/ND was a no brainer.

Now everyone knows you can get it for free, and now the WMF is legally not a publisher and a non-profit, relaunching Wikipedia as a commercial product with actual monetary value, would be suicide, if it is even possible. It's unlikely they would even survive the shitstorm long enough to get it to market.

Their business model is set and unlikely to change, and a big part of it is persuading people there's no better alternatives, certainly not for free, a position Poetlister himself has been happy to promote on Wikipediocracy.

Honestly, this guy. He genuinely took exception when I said he mouths off about shit he clearly hasn't researched. If I had posted this reply on Wikipediocracy, or rather if his protectors allowed me to, he'd be running for cover right about now.

The End wrote:I miss Mancunium. He was great making the newsposts, even if he did go overboard with the mass quoting and claimed to be a royal prince. Seriously.

He was the Alex Montagu, 13th duke of Manchester we didn't deserve, but the one we found we needed, the fake British royal who loved Laika the Barker, the first dog in space, possibly because he was Ignatius J. Reilly without the trollish personality.

Strelnikov wrote:

The End wrote:I miss Mancunium. He was great making the newsposts, even if he did go overboard with the mass quoting and claimed to be a royal prince. Seriously.

He was the Alex Montagu, 13th duke of Manchester we didn't deserve, but the one we found we needed, the fake British royal who loved Laika the Barker, the first dog in space, possibly because he was Ignatius J. Reilly without the trollish personality.

Although he was his own funhouse mirror, I miss him. It's my belief he's now deceased.

Not all members of the royal family are dukes, and most dukes are not royal. Manchester is not one of the royal dukedoms.