View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:11 am




Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Tim Davenport 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
In so many ways, the comments of Tim Davenport (Wikipedia user Carrite, Wikipediocracy poster Randy from Boise) illustrate the sort of arrogant idiocy that underpins the average Wikipediot. If Wikipedia didn't have hundreds of willing addicts who were this patently dumb, but crucially believed their words were solid gold brilliance and merit equal weight with actual experts, it would never have become what it is (a cancer on society).


Tue May 01, 2018 1:42 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
In the context of Wikipediocracy trying to add value to the current controversy of what Wikipedia's suite of World War II articles do and don't contain, just look at this nonsense from Timbo......
Timmy wrote:
World War II wasn't about eugenics or death camps. It was about the military invasion of sovereign nations and the reaction thereto.

I rather doubt there is much coverage of Soviet mass murder in the World War II article either... Damned if I'm gonna read it to find out, big topics like that are a perfect example of What Wikipedia Is Not.
Poetlister wrote:
This is exactly the "it was just another war; Hitler was just another politician" line that the neo-Munchkin apologists try to push.
Timmy wrote:
Well, that depends on how narrowly or broadly one defines "World War II." For military historians, it is a series of battles, starting with an invasion and ending with an invasion. Obviously, the military aspect is just that — an aspect.

I really don't have a problem with the military historians doing their thing with the war as a set of military campaigns as long as there are other, linked, correct histories of other aspects of the conflict, including (but not limited to) munchkin ideology and the fascist genocide.
On what planet is a "military historian" not concerned with the ideology of the regime sending its military into a conflict, much less the atrocities committed by it in furtherance of that ideology? And how narrowly do you have to construe the topic of "World War II" so as to happily overlook the fact Wehrmacht officers were indoctrinated in schools set up specifically for that purpose by the Propaganda Minister, some dude named Joseph Goebbels.

This is what Wikipedia has done to the world. Idiots like this are the people who are deciding what should and should not be in the articles of the 'world's greatest encyclopedia', and kids are going to be reading it as part of their education.

This is what passes for informed comment about the faults and failings of Wikipedia, on Wikipediocracy, from one of their most active and long serving posters. And if you call it what it is, namely embarrassingly ignorant and downright dangerous bullshit in the current climate, even if you are careful to do so politely and without malice, you will be banned by Zoloft for upsetting the regulars.


Tue May 01, 2018 1:55 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
The above isn't a theoretical concern either. Timmy happily lists on his Wikipedia user page the large number of Wikipedia articles he has made significant contributions to. They are primarily about history, and Timmy has previously admitted on Wikipediocracy that the reason he writes on Wikipedia is because he gets more readers than when he was churning out his stuff as a self-publisher. Evidently he has never been able to persuade anyone his stuff is worth giving him an advance or royalties for.


Tue May 01, 2018 2:13 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
It's time to dissassemble "Timbo's Rules". Let's hope he can handle it.
Quote:
Rule 1. The more important the topic of a Wikipedia article, the higher the probability of conflict over content. (Feb. 2012)
Bullshit. The article in the "Earth" is important. What he means is, controversial topics are fought over most at Wikipedia. There will be no Nobel Prize for this unremarkable observation.
Quote:
Rule 2. So-called "anti-canvassing" rules are a mechanism by means of which a narrow clique can avoid broad discussion and decision by a larger and more inclusive group. (Feb. 2012)
The anti-canvassing rules can't be used to stop anyone drawing an appropriate number of Wikipedia editors to any particular issue, not even Wikipedia 's famously corrupt Administrators would be able to prevent them being used this way. It is the implication in the rules that a group of Wikipedia editors of any size will be inclusive that is the problem here. Timmy doesn't see it of course.
Quote:
Rule 3. The slogan "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." is an Orwellian idiocy. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is actually veracity and verifiability. (Feb. 2012; modified Jan. 2016)
I'm baffled as to what he even means here (through not surprised to see he has his own alternate interpretation of a core Wikipedia policy). Perhaps he meant something other than veracity, but if not, all he is saying is Wikipedia can only include information that is verifiable and true. Well, duh. This does not advance the understanding of how to deal with situations where adhering to 'verifiability not truth' creates absurd situations for editors. Unless this is simply a restatement of IAR. And that really would be dumb, because 'write what you want as long as you know it is true' is manifestly not going to improve Wikipedia.
Quote:
Rule 4. Starting articles on Wikipedia is like building sandcastles on the beach. Down by the surf the sand is nice and wet and the building is easy, but your work will soon be wiped out by an incoming wave. For your work to last, build farther up the beach. (Feb. 2012)
What. The. Fuck.
Quote:
Rule 5. There are five basic types of participants at Wikipedia: content creators, copy editors, vandal fighters, problem solvers, and people who are just there for the perpetual soap opera. The first four of these groups are useful, the fifth is not. (Feb. 2012, modified June 2013)
Classic Wikipedian arrogance. Attitudes like this are exactly why they struggle to resolve disputes effectively. If the Wikipedians were remotely effective at identifying productivity, then why is only 0.6% of Wikipedia good and why is anywhere from 10% to 20% of it untrustworthy, both according to their own metrics? His basic classification is of course garbage too, but he won't have produced it using anything but his own perceptions. These are the people who make value judgements on Wikipedia. It is a literal exercise in mob rule.
Quote:
Rule 6. Wikipedia says of itself that it is "not a democracy" and "not a bureaucracy." That is half right. (Feb. 2012)
Bullshit. You can't move on Wikipedia for votes, they vote on anything and everything. And a real bureaucracy both has lots of rules, and a means to enforce them. As anyone who spends any time there, the posted rules are not meant to be used at all, they're window dressing, a fantasy illusion to convince the ignorant public that they somehow know what they're doing and are capable of acting in a mature fashion. You'll see people wrongly invoking them and totally misrepresenting them all the time. In reality, Wikipedia has just a few rules, and they are largely unwritten.
Quote:
Rule 7. Honest people may differ about matters of interpretation. Dishonest people are unable to admit this. (Feb. 2012)
As usual, we see a Wikipedian cast anyone who doesn't accept what they are saying about anything is the reasonable interpretation of an honest person, is dishonest. Their arrogance is unreal. They never tell lies, they never act dishonesty, they cannot knowingly harm Wikipedia. Fuck off.
Quote:
Rule 8. Everyone has bias, both conscious and inherent. The doctrine of Neutral Point of View doesn't legislate human nature away, it simply requires that one be fair and proportionate to all sides of a debate and dispassionate in the delivery. (Feb. 2012)
Bias is a learned behaviour, you moron. A product of education and upbringing. The only bias nature gives humans, is towards tribalism and self-preservation, traits that all well developed systems of governance have properly mitigated against. If Wikipedians like Tim have a handle on this sort of bias, and actively work to ensure it does not affect Wikipedia, you could have fooled me. Their governance system is comparable to the Middle Ages.
Quote:
Rule 8-1/2. In the long run Neutral Point of View will always triumph over the tendentious distortions of the moment. (Feb. 2012)
In the long run, humans will be extinct. Wikipedia is seventeen years old, it has had long enough to figure out how to effectively combat those who would abuse Wikipedia for their own purposes. If anything, Wikipedia has decided there is no longer any point in trying to combat those who would try to skew it, they now want us to believe this is a healthy and integral part of their system, it is the warfare that apparently creates neutral content. No surprise that Tim isn't up to date on current Wikipedia theory. Both theories are bunk of course. You ensure neutrality by incetivising those with a demonstrable record of achieving it, and removing those who don't. Wikipedia doesn't even keep track of these qualities in its editors, much less value them. Wikipedia is the plaything of people like Cirt. The editor who exposed their latest sock to evade a ban against biased editing was not Tim, he didn't give a crap. It was dealt with by Pudeo, and Pudeo is routinely maligned by MjolnirPants as biased. Will Tim step up and defend them? Or course not.
Quote:
Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales. (Feb. 2012)
Really? Whatever held Wikipedia together to take it up to (and now well past) peak Wikipedia, it wasn't what Larry Sanger had in mind. He has said that the trolls took over Wikipedia as early as 2001, and he has written extensive!y on the subject of how what Wikipedia calls neutrality, is a bastardised and self-serving version of his original vision. He's so pissed off, he's tried to kill Wikipedia with a reboot not once, but twice.
Quote:
Rule 10. Anyone who says "Wikipedia is not censored" has never paid particularly close attention to the way talk pages are treated by third parties. (Feb. 2012)
Or at Wikipedia articles? That would seem more relevant, no?
Quote:
Rule 11. Starting an article at Wikipedia is like raising a kid. You try to set them up on a good foundation and hope they'll develop and progress in the right way, without getting mixed up with the wrong people and getting themselves killed. Ultimately, however, all you can do when you post a piece is wave goodbye and hope for the best. (Feb. 2012)
Jesus. No surprise to see a Wikipedian compare their scribbles to a task as complicated and serious as raising a child. Tim's advice to post and walk away is good advice, but only because Wikipedia is a very fucked up place. The primary means Wikipedia has to ensure articles don't degrade, is addiction. You post an article, and then obsessively monitor it for the rest of your waking life. It's sick. The theoretical model is that you can post an article and the theoretically walk away if you wish or if circumstances dictate, safe in the knowledge that the community will lovingly look after it and ensure your hard work was not wasted. It takes a village and all that. But this is not what happens, because Wikipedians aren't remotely like parents in their levels of maturity or responsibility. Literally not even close. In so many ways, the Wikipedians are the children, and Wikipedia is just one giant orphanage set up and funded by an uncaring society, designed to give these abandoned children something to do until they grow up. Timmy is a Lost Boy.
Quote:
Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)
Garbage. Speak to anyone who has actually researched the issue, and you will learn that IP editing is allowed both because it is a very efficient means of ensuring new addicts are created, and that IP editors are responsible for a disproportionate amount of actual Wikipedia content, the basic information in articles. They literally built Wikipedia.
Quote:
Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012)
No surprise to see a Wikipedian express their support for such a disgusting way of treating people who come to your website to actually help, as they are frequently asked to do.
Quote:
Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. (March 2012)
And if those footnotes are there to support the idea the subject is very bad person, they probably don't. Welcome to Wikipedia, where they literally can't even follow their most basic and important rules, because they're biased and/or incompetent.
Quote:
Rule 15. There's unnecessary confusion about how a paid Conflict of Interest editor can edit successfully at WP. It's actually as easy as one-two-three... 1. Declare your COI on the talk page. 2. Commit no spam — stick to uncontroversial, sourced content. 3. Invite scrutiny. (April 2012)
Garbage, as anyone who follows COI on Wikipedia knows. Perhaps it is simply because this was written a long time ago, but you would not be surprised if he still thought this today. You cannot successfully edit Wikipedia (as in make good edits) with a COI unless you hide it. Fact. Declarations are merely a license to assume good edits are bad.
Quote:
Rule 16. The slogan "Adminship is No Big Deal" is a joke. Actually, RfA is a 7 day proctological exam conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be advised to run. (July 2012; modified Jan. 2016)

Rule 17. Then again, proctological exams do help ward off certain types of cancer. (Oct. 2012)
RfA is not remotely effective at preventing cancerous individuals from becoming Administrators. The consequences are no laughing matter. And certainly as far back as 2016, for anyone who is just a bog standard average experienced Wikipedian, RfA has been a walkover, a coronation. The only people who come out of it feeling violated, are those who dare to treat it as something other than a coronation, for example those who go looking for evidence the candidate is capable of being held to the 'higher standard' of Adminship, the claimed existence of which is what can really be dismissed as the joke of this process.
Quote:
Rule 18. Content should be content, in accordance with established policies — factual accuracy, verifiability, neutrality of tone. The desires and whims of biographical subjects should be completely separated from this; their concerns may be voiced and taken into consideration in debate, but content absolutely needs to be independently derived. (June 2013)
I'm not aware of any time his has not been the case, indeed the Wikipedians tend to be quite militant on this score. Except, of course, when it comes to the wishes of Wikipedians, namely whether they do or don't want the hassle of a Wikipedia biography.
Quote:
Rule 19. Having underwent the RFA process through no fault of my own (trying to get temporary reading rights for deleted material in connection with an ArbCom case) I can say this with authority: "Yes, Virginia, there is a cabal." (July 2013)
Trust Tim to pick the one example where the community were clearly acting with full transparency.
Quote:
Rule 20. Nobody ever accused the cabalistas of being active builders of Wikipedia, speaking as a caste, just like nobody ever accused John D. Rockefeller and his cronies of being oil workers. (June 2014)
Again, no Nobel Prize here methinks.
Quote:
Rule 21. The wise slogan "Don't feed the trolls" has a corollary: Don't feed the grouches. (Sept. 2014)
I prefer the unspoken rule - ignore any and all criticism (unless you spot an easy way to dispute one tiny part of their arguments so as to discredit the whole thing)
Quote:
Rule 22. There will always be drama at Wikipedia. Whereas writing articles, correcting grammar, tagging new submissions, and rolling back vandalism can be boring, drama is usually fun and people like to have fun. (Dec. 2014)
Not surprising to see Tim failing to acknowledge an obvious truth - in most Wikipedia drama there is an identifiable victim, for whom the experience is undoubtedly not fun. Wikipedians in general have a long record of failing to see how harmful their own total inability to govern themselves efficiently or effectively can be. No surprise their solution is so often to simply ignore it. They're selfish, and they don't like hard work. As for the idea tagging articles and rolling back vandals is not fun, how come it seems to attract the prototypical dopamine feuled gamer types? Spoil their fun and you will absolutely know about it. Same goes for stopping any Wikipedian doing what they're doing. None of them do anything that is boring to them - this isn't how Wikipedia works at all.
Quote:
Rule 23. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a voluntary allocation of duties in which writers write, copyeditors edit, administrators administrate, and it takes a lawyer or a lunatic to want to serve on ArbCom. And there sure as hell aren't enough lawyers... (Nov. 2015, revised Dec. 2015)
Only a Wikipedian ever assumes that the only roles on Wikipedia that is staffed by people not remotely qualified to do it, is ArbCom. Laughably untrue. They despise ArbCom because it is the only part of Wikipedia where people are expected and indeed empowered to stop Wikipedians doing something they are clearly incapable of doing.
Quote:
Rule 24. Having closely watched a number of ArbCom cases, with different defense strategies and different results, I think that we can generalize as follows: if a person is brought before ArbCom, they should admit error, apologize and promise to do better, and shut the fuck up. (Jan. 2016)
No longer really true. Since Arbcom has been corrupted through the election of people like Opabina Regalis, it is no longer in your best interests to admit fault, even if you have been caught bang to rights. Doing so makes it much harder for the Arbitrators to do what they seem to want do these days - find any way they can to ensure a trip to ArbCom results in the weakest possible sanction, up to and including refusing to even accept a case. Promises to do better no longer interest ArbCom, they are self-defeating for those editors ArbCom doesn't wasn't to lose, and they are ignored for the cases where ArbCom wants an editor gone if they break a promise, but the Administrators do not.
Quote:
Rule 25. Biographies of Dead People are easier to source out than Biographies of Living People. They also tend to complain less about the content. (March 2016)
Since obituaries are ubiquitous on Wikipedia, and given Wikipedia editors well documented fascination with the recently deceased, again, no Nobel Prize here.
Quote:
Rule 26. It's not about the race or age or gender of the editors or where they live or who they sleep with. Demographics, schmemographics... If you want better content at Wikipedia, write better content for Wikipedia. (June 2016)
Utter garbage, contradicted by all available evidence. Typical of Tim to believe what he wants to believe though, a Wikipedian to his core.
Quote:
Rule 27. The drama pages (including ArbCom) are a cross between Game of Thrones and The Godfather, Part 3. Fortunately, all one has to do to avoid the circus is not go to the circus. (Aug. 2016)
While it has been shown a strategic voluntary block by Bishonen is an effective way of avoiding your day in court, failure to appear is sadly not an option for anyone but the highest born, such as Queen Bishonen. As such, the comparisons to these works of fiction, are erroneous. Wikipedia governance is sadly not a work of fiction, although you really would struggle to make it up.
Quote:
Rule 28. The only way administrators can actually end edit warring is by sending all warriors from the battlefield. (June 2017)
Ending it is an impossibility, sure. I'd settle for a consistent approach. Impossible for Wikipedia, the chief obstacles being the virtual freedom given to Administrators to act in ways that are so obviously biased and corrupt. Does Tim do anything about that? Or course not.
Quote:
Rule Infinity. - Let the stupid people congregate among the widely read, News of the Day, general interest type pages and fight amongst themselves. Find something unwritten and write it and improve the encyclopedia on the edges. That's the secret to life at WP. (July 2016) Renamed June 2017.
View your participation in Wikipedia through a selfish lens, in other words. Understandable that Tim values this rule more than any other.


Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:30 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 145
Reply with quote
Ha ha, you've exposed me, dragonslayer!

Time to go jump off a bridge, I have nothing more to live for.

What's the matter, you fake-ass pussy? Still have a bloody nose???

xoxo,


tim


Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
Yes OK, Tim. But I was looking to this interview, and I thought, you are a dammed good observer because you see the same thing I see happend in Europe.

Europe is changing in the way this man describes very rapidly. Stay out of our culture, no islam, no globalism. we want to stay who and how we are.
Describe me how you see the future of WMF in this quick changing world. And please answer my last question in the last topic.
You have a mentality we are to big to fall, watch us. And I believe it has no change because of this changing world. Wikipedia and WMF are domed to fail.

_________________
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


Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:53 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1505
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
Ha ha, you've exposed me, dragonslayer!
Time to go jump off a bridge, I have nothing more to live for.
What's the matter, you fake-ass pussy? Still have a bloody nose???

It certainly took you a loooong time to notice this thread.


Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
Tim, you don't have to be afraid I belong to the hasten the day church. Like I said many times before I was a editor on the Dutch WMF products, and the users there and WMNL are much, much better than I to hasten the day.

I am only on the critical fora like I was a personality in the Decameron, hiding for the wiki plague. That is the reason I am sometimes talking about WPNL, it's users. my RC model trains, Holland, the situation of the woman in Europe, etc, but almost never about WPEN.
In short, I am complete indifferent about WPEN, as far it don't affects me, what makes me complete neutral in my roll as a arbitrator.

I don't mind who of the two of you wins, I only like the debate.

_________________
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


Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
What a surprise, Tim can't seem to locate the copyright symbol on his keyboard.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =868494003

Not that he will have obtained permission for ripping 10kb of text from Wikipediocracy to Wikipedia.

Now it all becomes clear, his whole stance against those who would have people like Richard Norton, Dr. Blofeld and all the other copyright violaters held to account. Self-preservation! 'Twas ever thus I guess.


Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:53 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 145
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
What a surprise, Tim can't seem to locate the copyright symbol on his keyboard.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =868494003

Not that he will have obtained permission for ripping 10kb of text from Wikipediocracy to Wikipedia.

Now it all becomes clear, his whole stance against those who would have people like Richard Norton, Dr. Blofeld and all the other copyright violaters held to account. Self-preservation! 'Twas ever thus I guess.


Keep practicing, someday you'll be able to hit a 85 mph fastball... We all believe in you!

xoxo,

RfB


Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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.