Page 2 of 11

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:58 am
by Dysklyver
ericbarbour wrote:The one guy whose career on en-WP gives the lie to all that "Wiki-Luv" crap, Eric Corbett, is now one of the few remaining regulars on WO. How many times was he banned and unbanned? You can't even trust the block log because it's been tampered with a hundred times!

You can trust it, as long as you remember it doesn't include warning or topic bans, and that a big chuck of it is on his old account Malleus Fatuorum.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:01 pm
by CrowsNest
Jim_(Begoon) wrote:Of course, for the sake of comprehensive inclusiveness, Everipedia 'developers' should first do an indiscriminate mass scrape and import of all the 'amateur porn with no educational value' which already exists on WMF servers.
If he is remotely serious about this sentiment, then this Wikipediot scumbag could of course start with the images on permanent rotation at User talk:Iridescent, a venue which Jim/Begoon is an avid reader of (just in case he chooses to claim he is unaware of this aspect of Wikipedia's amateur porn problem). Does he have an opinion on Iridescent's claimed educational value? Would he dare to express it, anywhere at all, if he cannot find the courage to do so in that most hallowed of places?

Here's a representative sample of the images....he has many more in the rotation ... nwoods.jpg ... n_BDSM.jpg ... 896-24.jpg

Come on Jim. Time to demonstrate you're not just a very big mouth with very tiny trousers. Put your money where your rat hole is. Use that God given means of direct influence that your status as a Wikipediot confers you, to do some good in the world. I'd create a sock to lodge that protest myself, for the good of humanity, but we all know the part Wikipediocracy has played in ensuring all such good Samaritans are seen as lepers by the so called community of editors, you included, many many times of course.

Or not. I understand if you find that being your normal self is the far more attractive option. It's not like anyone in on Wikipediocracy will dare to cash in those vacuous words. They love nothing more than a good yarn from a false prophet, isn't that right? Probably what keeps you coming back for more.


I fucking told you, didn't I? Treat me like a fucking mug, this is what you get. I fucking own you pieces of shit.

Merry Fucking Christmas. Peace be up on you all. If you ever do something to deserve it.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:02 pm
by CrowsNest
Oh boy...... ... 25#p232625

If it's unacceptable to let 1,200 Administrators know the IP of an account that is blocked for sock-puppetry, why is it quite easy for anyone on the entire internet to figure it out using exactly this method, whenever Bbb23 (and I assume any other CU) {checkuser-block}s their sock accounts, and then hard blocks the underlying IP seconds later.

Of course policy says don't link IPs to accounts, and if it is to be effective I would have assumed that meant both direct and indirect connections. But when Bbb23 wants people to know, such as if his boyfriend Drmies is being asked tough questions by editors Bbb23 has to scramble to block as naughty socks, he finds a way to let people know, presumably so they can do bad things as revenge. Even worse, it may just be his sloppy standard practice.

Anyone who doesn't know this is what he does, doesn't deserve to call themselves a Wikipedia Administrator, much less a Wikipedia Arbitrator (Bbb23's theoretical boss).

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:45 pm
by Dysklyver
On my SPI page one of the CU's has literally put a bunch of IP address there "for the record" in what must be a pretty damning breach of policy and maybe an excuse for something a little more European... ;)

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:51 pm
by Graaf Statler
Hm? GDPR? A bunch of IP addres :?:

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:27 pm
by Dysklyver
Graaf Statler wrote:Hm? GDPR? A bunch of IP addres :?:


And made easier by the fact that my name is on the page, not just some usernames.

It's a consideration anyway. 8-)

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:36 pm
by CrowsNest
The_Adversary wrote:Just checked: "world-renowned" appears no less than 35,152 times on en.wp, typically on WP:BLPs.

Why should that word ever be needed in an encyclopaedia?
Jake wrote:I guess I could see it for direct quotes, but if you're including a direct quote that uses that term, you're probably just using the quoted person as a proxy because you don't think you can get away with it yourself.
The_Adversary wrote:Well, the handful that I checked: not a single one of them had a source for "world-renowned".
It is a particular failing of many a dumb Wikipedian, to believe that if you're saying something that isn't in a source, then you're guilty of original research. And in most cases, you would be. There is an exception every encyclopedian understands though - the distillation and summation of multiple authoritative sources into one phrase that adequate conveys the representative sentiment. You can imagine a hundred different ways that sources would convey that someone was world renowned, without including "world-renowned". Editors can and should be trusted to be capable of that sort of interpretation without loss of meaning, and indeed there are good reasons (copyright) that this skill should be second nature.

Now, dare we assume good faith that this particular Wikipedian/ocrat was aware of this basic aspect of the theory of Wikipedia editing? Their use of quote marks says no, or worse, they don't know what quote marks are for.

It is hard to think of any case that does specifically use the phrase, that would be worthy of quoting in an encyclopedia. Not exactly Gettysburg Address material. And that is the reason you would deny it, not because you think the editor is trying to circumvent a rule that does not and need not exist.

As for why an encyclopedia would contain this phrase, why would they not? Is this idiot perhaps assuming that everyone mentioned in Wikipedia would be world-renowned for something? Surely not. Are they perhaps thinking the phrase is too imprecise or subjective to be useful? Maybe. But there can be no doubt the phrase is a commonly understood one, and therefore it is unlikely to be a case there would be much disagreement among sources. Again, to an encyclopedian, applying such judgements would be second nature.

Perhaps we can infer something from the choice of thread title - "Puffery". I've got nothing, unless the point was to argue the use of the phrase is always an example of unjustified promotion. Again, that sounds too dumb to be the reason. Wikipedia does indeed have a problem with puffery, although the solution is obviously to remove it where it isn't warranted, thereby aligning the occurrence of the phrase in their texts to its real world usage, rather than deleting it wherever it is seen.

Still, I guess that is a little too complex and time consuming solution for a Wikipedian like this, and a little difficult when you have no means to manage such work. They looked at a couple of sources here, sure, but many of Wikipedia's problems can be attributed to them not really liking the prospect of spending their days checking articles against sources. They prefer formatting, fighting and mutual grooming. They can spot when there isn't a source at all, sort of (they often miss newbies putting it in the wrong place), but so could a monkey really. Monkeys don't write encyclopedias. Until Wikipedia.

Wikipedians will often turn up at an article and fight the person who used a phrase like this over whether such a description is warranted. It is one of the few times they are happy to diverge from the mantra of 'we follow the sources', except in the distorted direct quote interpretation. And looking for direct quotes is a common tactic used by that particular sort of time wasting moron, the people who should not be within a million miles of an encyclopedia's edit button.

You can find dumbassery like this all over Wikipediocracy. And more often than not, Mr. "I've never been a Wikipedia editor" Jake can be seen right in the middle of it, not spotting what is right in front of his face, instead just finding something banal to say to keep the idiots interested. It's all about their Alexa ranking and their Wikipedian approval ratings.

Just another example of how the only women who find Wikipedia attractive, are often drawn from the lower end of that gender pool's skillset. Just shut the fuck up and to go do something you are qualified to speak about. Picking up dogshit maybe.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:39 pm
by CrowsNest
Ming on the citogensis problem.....
This is one reason why Ming tries to go with sources which are older than the article when updating an existing article.

What a prat.

If your source isn't older than 2001, then unless you have pretty sick skillz, you'll never really be sure it isn't tainted by the cult.

If you have moderate skillz, you can be pretty sure, if you know exactly how to to determine the date of first insertion of the suspect fact you're trying to source, and that requires you being aware of all the magical ways an edit history can perhaps not reflect that. Reassurance comes from being knowledgeable enough to assess the source you have too.

If you don't have these moderate skillz, then there really is no point in you even pretending you can safeguard against citogenisis, you just need to hope, and maybe steer clear of editing articles with serious consequences if they are factually incorrect. Leave those to the experts, assuming they even want to engage with a shit-show like Wikipedia.

A good way to ensure you aren't being sensible in the face of the citogenisis problem, is do what this prat is doing. The average Wikipedia articles will be at least ten years old by now, if not older, so unless your chosen topic is something where nothing has changed in the last decade, you really do need to be able to use sources that are going to be younger than the article.

Elsewhere he is whining about a stock photo site selling Commons images. Something they're perfectly entitled to do, because "for any purpose" means exactly that. They are supposed to clearly indicate the license, as opposed to just sort of implying you got it from Commons and claiming copyright anyway, but you can tell Ming the Mong hasn't figured out that is the real issue with what they're doing.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:07 pm
by CrowsNest
Poetlister wrote:This is a thread for examples of how Wikipedians often see things just from a US perspective.

How about a thread for examples of Wikipedia delivering a topic from a truly global perspective? It would be very, very, short, if not zero posts long. Especially when considering Wikipedia isn't theoretically beholden to use only English language sources, their dominance in part being merely a by-product of their failed recruitment model.

Fucking useless muppet.

Did the world really miss anything when they useless forum went offline recently?

A real critic would point out things about Wikipedia that most people probably don't know. For example, Wikipedia theoretically has 3,609 registered users who are native French speakers, a pretty useful language for a global encyclopedia.

I picked three at random, and the most recent participant was someone who had made their last contributuion, a whole one edit, in 2014. At least it beat the other two, who had departed in 2006 and 2007. I had to pick another three before I even found someone who beat that record, and they have only made a handful of edits in 2018.

And if you're thinking they might still at least be active in another site, French Wikipedia hopefully, well, no. They're just gone. Just like pretty much everyone who has ever edited Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:34 pm
by Graaf Statler
Well, if you want to have a truly global perspective is Jimbotalk the place to be.
Wnt wrote:To the contrary, it may be time for Wikipedia to recognize and return to the reality that it is a strictly American project that has allowed some foreigners to come in as guests.