View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:02 am




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

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
:?
Quote:
The group that I am proudly a member of is active Wikipedians who believe that the positive benefit of the project outweighs its negatives, and who believe that the project's fifteen year success has been largely through the semi-automomous community of volunteers that has emerged, created content, curated, and self-governed.
Note the lack of "quality" or even "reliable" before the word "content".

Yes, Wikipedians got together and wrote some shit on the internets. The government doesn't exactly work, but it at least hasn't stopped enough stuff being written to outweigh the amount that gets deleted, and that's basically how you people measure success, right?

In less than a generation, a maximum of ten thousand people - addicts, freeloaders and ideologues - completely destroyed hundreds of years of actual knowledge curation.

The scourge of citogenisis alone is a negative big enough to wipe out any possible positives you selfish irresponsible bastards want to claim.

You're a bad person Timmy. A very bad person.

Oh, and btw, Wikipedia is eighteen, not fifteen. :ugeek:


Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 164
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
:?
Quote:
In less than a generation, a maximum of ten thousand people - addicts, freeloaders and ideologues - completely destroyed hundreds of years of actual knowledge curation.

Yup. That is, Wikipedia killed real encyclopedias, that were operated for-profit, which is why they were reliable. There were certainly good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those. We need to look at what is actually happened, and not be distracted by our intentions, which we made up, and which become entirely confused because we actually have mixed intentions.


Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 145
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Oh, and btw, Wikipedia is eighteen, not fifteen. :ugeek:


I think there's a better argument for a 2004 date of (successful) origin than the actual 2001 date of birth, oh pedantic one. Note my use of word "success."

Oh, yeah, I forgot — you and reading, a little bit hit and miss...

RfB


Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:00 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
Thanks for the suggestion, Timmy Tim.

People like you and your wiki friends are as dangerous for the knowledge ecology as plastic in the ocean.

You guys are dumping disinformation, copyvio, rubbish, POV and lies in the knowledge ecology what because of the circle infection and the CC license become itself true. Thanks of Katherine's fact checkers who are scraping the internet in the Vig style for sources, most time based on that same wiki junk. Seldom someone improve something and if he does thanks to the international karater of Pedia and the CC licence every mistake he makes is worldwide spread. Because wikipedians are copycats, because of they autism they can't write themself a article, did you notice that too, Timmy? There mental defect makes that impossible for them to write themself a article, so they copy and spread junk, most times on a almost industrial level. Wikidate is a perfect example of this behaving.

Copyvio is a huge risk for the one who is reusing this wikishit, special in the EU with it's pay or I sue you legal system. This danger is complete ignored by the wiki mouvement. And beside that is spreading copyright violations on a large, almost industrial scale a criminal act in my country and other European country's too, so what are you promoting, Timmy? Capitalising stolen stuff? That can make your organisation to a criminal organisation, a heavy crime.

And what about giving a substantive response instate of rushing in here from time to time and shouting like a small child a oneliner Crow is mad or something like that, Timmy boy?
And when does Vig and your other Wiki friends come over, Timmy? Because just shouting peek a boo here and telling in Jake his digital clinic named Wikipediocrazy the other is mad and jumping around like a bunch of stoned monkey's is of course in no way a serious discussion.

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2019 12:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Oh, and btw, Wikipedia is eighteen, not fifteen. :ugeek:


I think there's a better argument for a 2004 date of (successful) origin than the actual 2001 date of birth, oh pedantic one. Note my use of word "success."

Oh, yeah, I forgot — you and reading, a little bit hit and miss...

RfB
I read so good I knew you would go this route, and I had a rebuttal already prepared. :ugeek:

The end of the two year period from 2004 to 2006 is actually a far better point at which to definitely declare Wikipedia was actually a success, it having been shown that the expansion rate was basically exponential. Of course by 2007-08 it was obvious the wheels had already fallen off, the drag effect of too many editors and zero leadership meaning it had already began to ossify and eat itself, the opportunity for much needed improvements to reshape it as a truly mass participation project where an actual encyclopedia would be the result, having been lost.

The site wide conflicts that began in that period - notability, civility, access control - are still being fought today, the legacy shit pile you're sitting on that you want to call an encyclopedia but manifestly isn't, flawed at creation and increasingly out of date and degraded in the project's twilight years, being the side effect.

Wikipedia is eighteen. Think what humanity has achieved in a similar time period through collective endeavour for the common good, and compare it to your progress toward your nominal goal, which is after all, merely just to summarize what is already known. I'm happy to accept it might have taken fifty years for every needed article to have been created and brought to Featured quality, but you're not going to even reach that milestone in 2051. Not even close. Hence the corporate priorities have completely shifted, and it's only you goofballs who are still even working to the old target.

Face it, your baby slipped into a come through lack of the proper care, because your model called for amateurs to staff the delivery room. Die hards like you are the ones operating the ventilator, happy that there is heartbeat, ignoring the fact there are no other more meaningful sign of life, and that your progeny is not going to do anything for society except be a burden.

This is not success by any measure. This is just sick. Dystopian stuff.

Pull that plug.

HTD.


Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
........I'm happy to accept it might have taken fifty years for every needed article to have been created and brought to Featured quality, but you're not going to even reach that milestone in 2051. Not even close. Hence the corporate priorities have completely shifted, and it's only you goofballs who are still even working to the old target.

Face it, your baby slipped into a come through lack of the proper care, because your model called for amateurs to staff the delivery room. Die hards like you are the ones operating the ventilator, happy that there is heartbeat, ignoring the fact there are no other more meaningful sign of life, and that your progeny is not going to do anything for society except be a burden.

This is not success by any measure. This is just sick. Dystopian stuff.

Pull that plug.

HTD.

We are living now, and not over 50 years and indeed, you and I are for sure not living anymore Timmy boy! ! This wikishit is NOW, in 2019 spread over the globe under a CC license, Timmy, we are living NOW, it's is not a closed box where devoted people are working for the future, no wikipedia is hosted NOW on the internet.
And, as Crow noticed before, who for the hell is willing to fix this digital dumpster, and for complete free?

It's less work to write a new good article than to fix this total rubbish, I have seen that on Wikiquote_NL, again complete screwed by sock De Wikischim.
Dreaming of a choir of wiki-angels falling from heaven what will solve every wiki problem is complete unrealistic. Special if they have to do that for free and others are partying around in the chapters who are doing in general for the rest NOTHING except consuming the free lunches and Edo's free beer!

_________________
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 Aug 12, 2019 5:55 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

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.