Tim Davenport

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: Tim Davenport

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:40 pm

:?
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:

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Mod
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by Abd » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:28 pm

CrowsNest wrote::?
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.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by Carrite » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:00 am

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

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

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:40 am

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.

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

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:27 am

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.

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

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:55 pm

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!

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

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:46 pm

All you Timmy haters out there, this is your chance to properly kick him in the nuts!

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 417#p15417

You know what to do. Fly monkeys fly!

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

Re: Tim Davenport

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:52 pm

:lol:
I would not take a single goddamned word uttered by Donald Trump as factual without additional corroboration from reality-based sourcing. The man lies perpetually and nonstop. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
And yet in his very next edit he deliberately deceived one of his fellow editors (in reference to the above)

Wikipedians! Can't trust 'em.

Post Reply