View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:17 am




Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Mendaliv wrote:
Yeah, that's why I get a little pissed when I see the "you aren't speaking for the whole community here" comments at WP:FRAM. On every other process we have other than except ArbCom elections, WP:FRAM has more participation than the overwhelming majority of all other actions. And of course, when that argument fails, comes "But won't anyone think of the unborn children unregistered users?"
10920 wrote:
Ah yes, the "silent majority", which always must agree with whatever the minority opinion is......I was merely restating that WP:FRAM basically is the community......I just dislike when people say the page doesn't represent the community. The "community" isn't really that large.
HEY DICKHEADS.

I know you can't be this retarded, but let's have it right. The silent majority are the thousands of people who have either simply never edited Wikipedia, or only did so for a short time, because it's such a toxic shit pit. The silent minority are the few decent editors who looked at FRAMBAN and decided they were safer just not saying anything, even though their thoughts would have been no more controversial than what the even tinier minority who did find the courage to post, were saying.

The_Elusice_Claw wrote:
It does not matter whether the relationship is intimate or not: they are obviously, at the very least, good friends. That in itself is enough to create the COI: Raystorm has not acted cleanly in this matter, and her actions have been determined solely by her friendship with a rather toxic individual. It also doesn't matter one iota that these two are both women: the genders involved are immaterial. There is a (at least) a close friendship, and that creates a COI
HEY DICKHEAD.

Not everyone is as thick as the people on Wikipediocracy, it is well known by non shit-talkers that a COI exists and has to be mitigated even if all that exists is a friendship, and no malfeasance is implied by that mitigation, which on Wikipedia is obviously recusal, not something ridiculous like resignation. The party involved here recused. Their hands are more than clean in the matter of investigating Fram, unless you have access to the sort of evidence which obviously none of the chuckleheads at Wikipediocracy has, otherwise they would have had a collective orgasm by now.

What serious people will want to know is, why the required recusals weren't seen in how the supposedly self-governing community responded to FRAMBAN? Bishonen and Floquenbeam - as close friends as it is possible for Wikipedians to be. Katie, their friend in the Arbitration committee, failing to recuse in the matter of judging their abuse of tools, and indeed making a classic error of believing she had mitigated, when she's done precisely the opposite. Let's not even get started on the conflicts that have compromised Doc James and Jimmy.

Does this sort of thing even concern you, Mr. Claw? As a Wikifuckwit, I'm guessing not.
Poetlster wrote:
Members of the WMF Board are not above scrutiny. Her conduct needs to be investigated by an impartial outsider, and she must be held fully accountable.
HEY DICKHEAD!

What impartial outsider has ever been allowed to investigate the conduct of Board member Doc James? I'll settle for seeing the full minutes and emails of his spat with Jimmy, because you know as well as I do that he is guilty as charged. You're a big fan of him and his supposed benefit to Wikipedia compared to the limited abilities of people smart enough to spot someone so addicted to the cult they probably put people's lives at risk in their actual job because of it, so maybe consider that next time you're flapping your gums about accountability, like you give a shit. The possibility of impartial outsiders investigating anything on Wikipedia is one of the dumbest things a supposed critic could ever say about the cult.

Three to five Board seats come from the community, which gives them block veto powers over any of the other four seats that are theoretically entirely open to total outsiders. Serious critics would be asking the question, is that not enough accountability to ensure questions are asked and satisfactory answers are obtained? If the entirely made up threat of Wikipedia building a Google competitor was enough for James to find his voice, why the fuck isn't he screaming his head off now?

Either the community has no influence at Board level, and they are all fools for trusting these people to have their backs, or the entire conspiracy theory is just a bunch of bullshit. Given the stupidity of Wikipedians and Wikipediocrats, both are equally likely.

As any fool could appreciate, if there even was a conspiracy here, it would not have been committed to print, nor would have anything been said in front of a third party. Best you have, is unspoken and presumed influence on those in subordinate positions of power. And shiiiiiiit, if that's your issue, why ignore the fact this happens on a daily, if not hourly basis, in the precious self-governing community? Not a bug, but a feature.
Moral_Hazard wrote:
Don't most articles of incorporation and bylaws require regular meetings announced in advance, with prompt minutes?
HEY DICKHEAD.

Don't minutes have a basic purpose of informing those not present at a meeting as to what was said and whether anything should be done about it? Did the precious self-governing community prove itself capable of even this basic level of competency? Is there a reason why you pieces of shit keep ignoring these basic and obvious issues with your conspiracy theory, as you continue to pursue one single women who you can't even be sure made the complaint that triggered the investigation that got flagged up in the minutes and was missed (or more likely deliberately ignored) by the precious ARBCOM?
?
Quote:
You know, given that the WMF employed an obnoxious jackass like Ironholds for years (and probably still would be employing him if he hadn't left), I find their behaviour extremely hypocritical.
HEY DICKHEAD.

Ironholds was an internal hire, plucked for greatness from the volunteer ranks, where he had served with distinction as an Administrator and coder. Sooner or later, you're all going to have to face up to the fact that as bad as all these people are or are claimed to be by the precious self-governing community, it is precisely the community that helped them onto that career ladder. You absolutely suck at spotting and removing toxic people from positions of power. Who is the Foundation supposed to hire, if not the best people you claim to have?

I mean, fuuuuck. Have you ever actually found anyone in the WMF guilty of high crimes against the community, who wasn't an internal hire? Apart from Lila of course. And we all know why you forced her out........or maybe some of you don't. Look it up some time. Oh no, wait, that would be something a community that could actually trust it's elected representatives to be open and transparent with them about important matters of State, would be able to do.

:lol:

HTD.


Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Mendaliv wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
It remains a mystery why in Fram's case he was only blocked on ENWP and WMF is happy for him to edit elsewhere.
Yeah, definitely can’t wrap my head around that. If the person everyone assumes to be the complainant is indeed the complainant, why wouldn’t you want Fram gone from Meta as well? And eventbanned for that matter?

Who knows, maybe T&S were experimenting with a new “ban minimalism” concept where they’d only ban someone from a wiki where specific problems were identified, and only go Foundation-wide once cross-wiki conduct became a factor (like the old global lock rule).
Who knows? Everybody except you clowns, it appears......
Quote:
* Lack of abusive conduct by the affected individual in any other Wikimedia Foundation supported projects.

* Record of positive contributions and overall good standing in other Wikimedia Foundation supported projects.

Partial Foundation bans help safeguard constructive contributions to and growth of smaller, technical, and/or emerging communities, where individual editors with problematic history on mature wikis sometimes become pillars without causing any issues.
Quote:
As part of the Improving Trust and Safety processes program, less intrusive office actions were introduced. Those options include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are, however, temporary or project-specific in nature. For example, if a user has been problematic on one project in particular while contributing without concerns to another community wiki, this can now be addressed in a more targeted way than a full Foundation global ban.
Quote:
The Trust & Safety team updated the policies to allow these less-stringent sanction options for use in cases where there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project. The intention of these new options is to be able to act in a way that is more sensitive to an individual’s circumstances and not have to give out indefinite global bans for problems that are limited in time or project-scope. Based on the evidence we received, this is such a case and we are hopeful that if Fram wishes to resume editing in a year, they will be able to do so effectively and in line with the terms of use. Prior to this policy update, the only sanction option available in a case like this would have been an indefinite global ban.
Now you know, and if you are capable, you can comment from a position of knowing why they did what they did.

Me, I don't see the logic either, but probably not for the same reasons as you mutton heads.


Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:08 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
So, after tracking down her PhD thesis (seriously, stalkers much?), the investigators have finally confirmed Subject A is married to Subject B. :shock:

Such a shame that the information was always readily discoverable from meta.wikimedia.org, right in the place people concerned about conflicts of interest would have looked. :ugeek:

What a mistake to make. I guess it's pretty hard to concentrate when you're masturbating furiously. :oops:

Useless fucks. :roll:

These are the people with expertise in uncovering Wikipedia's hidden secrets? Fuck off. They couldn't find a sock in a sock drawer.


Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Quote:
[junior high thesis arguing only polite people are valued by the Foundation]

If my suspicion is right, then the content/"reliability" of Wikipedia will soon start to suffer a sharp decline.
Oh hai. Serious analyst here. Where might one find a reliable index/metric for how reliable Wikipedia is? Particularly one that takes measurements over time.

I mean, I know only 0.1% of Wikipedia is rated by their own standards as their best quality work (what Britannica would merely call a good first draft), but that figure hasn't changed for years, despite the best efforts of pieces of shit like Eric Corbett and the serious bizness squad.

Nobody asked for or wants Wikipedia articles on Little Crumpet Bottom railway station, or whatever the shitheads are grinding out now. So who cares if it degrades? He won't like to admit it, but a realization Wikipedia is a life sentence, is why the ferret fucker Corbett is now begging for martrydom. If he was so good, why was it possible for EEng to cut 10k from Moors murders in a simple series of copyedits. Not done by a polite user, but one of the other douchbags who wouldn't be seen dead at an official meatspace event (lest someone want to put an iron bar through his head, for medical study purposes), so it must have been the right call to make for quality purposes, according to your shitty thesis.

I mean, do you actually know fuck all about Wikipedia? You act like you do, as if less observant people really should give a shit what you think, but isn't that the whole point of Wikipediocracy? Ignorant people endlessly talking crap.

Come on, surprise us. "Sharp decline"? :roll: :lol:

This last year or so, several of the self-proclaimed best editors have had long breaks, Cassianto et al, so you should have already observed this sharp decline, right? If you're not full of it.


Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:16 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Moral_Hazard wrote:
The WMF is being squeezed by dumb, insufferable grifters, who accuse anybody who raises questions of being misogynist or Gamergaters.
Um, who are you talking about there, sparky? Because I know you can't ask any questions, on account of your ban.

We know Winged Blades of Gothric hasn't asked the question, because he lost his bottle.

I know I would have remembered if I'd seen any of you panty sniffers ask a question on this particular bullshit, because I'd still be laughing my ass off.

Why the rejection of the Gamergate narrative? How is it wrong? Do you have any actual, y'know, feminists, in your corner? Any decent people at all? Will you be relying on Mason, or Masem, to have to manipulate Wikipedia to correct the mainstream media's characterisation of your conduct as you have pursued your imagined foe? Are you seriously going to dispute characterizations like "cruel"? You'd like, perhaps, "noble"? Yes, I'm sure you would.

An insufferable person is someone who would be the sort of prick who ends up being the last person in the world still trying to defend the renowned women hater Eric if you don't want your panties sniffed don't come within ten feet of me Corbett. That's going to be you, isn't it, shitbreak?


Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Andy_The_Gump wrote:
If anyone is interested I could probably put together 20 pages on what I consider Wikipedia's fundamental structural flaw: the contradiction between 'encyclopaedia' and 'anyone can edit', and on why this fundamental contradiction is responsible for so much of the disfunctionality that gets blamed on the failings of individuals.
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

Done.

Seriously, who needs twenty pages to say what can be said in four words?

Anyone can edit is Wikipedia. Note a structural flaw, but the entire fucking point of the experiment. Obviously they want people who are capable and have read and understood the manual, but if you start telling people who are capable and have read the manual that they still cannot edit Wikipedia, or they can but only if they fulfil some other criteria too, well, congratulations, you just invented something that is not Wikipedia. And never will be.

And as might then be obvious given what we know about how it really works, Wikipedia is not even Wikipedia. Nowhere in the manual does it say you have to build a social circle, or identity with a particular Warrior faction, or surrender your right to human dignity, or otherwise accept entire chunks of the manual are invisible, etc, etc. But if you don't, well, you won't be editing for very long.

Twenty pages to explain how and why the Wikipediots destroyed the very meaning of the word encyclopedia (a compendium of knowledge, the inference being that because it is knowledge, it can be assumed to be neutral, reliable and comprehensive)......now that would sell.


Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:34 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2436
Reply with quote
Yach, I am really, really glad I am not a part of the wiki family anymore. The way they are now throwing buckets of shit over the head of Laura Hale is disgusting.
On the other hand WMF always has tolerated and stimulated this behaving. I am really sorry for this young lady, but it is good WMF sees now with there one eyes what happens on there websites. Because this is business as usual.

And the solution is not replacing a bunch of male assholes and free loaders by a bunch of female assholes and free loaders what Maher as the final solution sees.
Yeh, they really should talk with you, Crow and leaving that sick woman and gender nonsens for now. Because there are other problems to solve, serious problems.

_________________
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 Jul 13, 2019 3:39 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2436
Reply with quote
At least Jake has edited the most toxic postings now, but this is of course not the way to discuses that ban. Focussing on one person and trowing as much shit buckets as you can over her head.

But that is the wiki system. A system based on paying the other as much Shit Buckets as you can and try to get your opponent blocked so you and your gang has wikipedia for themself. And who is thinking this problem is to be solved with more woman writers or ad random blocking a few users with a SanFanBan is acting and thinking just as insane as these people are. For Doctor Hale personally I am sorry she is the victim of this fox hunting but for WMF I am not.

This is not something what belongs in my country. This is not something where good willing people there money for gave, that is insane. It is not there money, they are extreem bad what we call rentmeesters, trustee. They are acting like it is there money, money what they have earned but that is simple not true. It's charity money.
But this is something what should be the responsibility of our governments and the press. But both seems to be in a coma and Crow and I only can bring this to there attention. But that is where our responsibility as a civilian stops. It is simple where our responsibility as a good civilian ends.

_________________
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


Last edited by Graaf Statler on Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:02 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
Mendaliv wrote:
Eagle wrote:
The point is that if the WMF wanted a volunteer to photograph and write up this ski tournament for WikiNews, why could not some resident of Colorado (or North America) be recruited for that mission without the trans-Pacific travel?
Exactly, that's the part that drives me crazy. If there's a genuine reason why someone local won't do, fine. For instance, if there's little or no Wikimedia movement in the country or region and you have made (documented) attempts to get local coverage that have failed. Or the person wanting to travel has some particular skill or training that's necessary to accomplish a discrete task (like lead a training session to train other people to do the same tasks locally).

But for stuff that becomes "part" of the requestor (e.g., training, certifications, memberships, equipment, software, etc.) that should generally not be reimbursed. For instance, a lot of venues require pro photographers to have insurance coverage. Would it be a reasonable request for funding to take out an insurance policy so you could get funding to photograph an event? Will insurers even sell you an equipment policy that just covers a couple of days? And what about other intangibles?

And, my god, how much would it have cost to pay someone local to go there? Like literally hire a pro photographer. Put out a "Call for Photographers" using Geonotice (which has existed in some form since at least 2007) and offer mileage reimbursement and an easy application.
Look at these prats, gobbing off like they have a clue.

Why don't you first start researching what Wikinews is, then comment? Here's where you should start - they don't exactly have a lot of accredited reporters.

In the entire Wikimedia movement, are you even sure there is a single person in the whole North American continent, who has the slightest fucking interest in covering a paralympic ski tournament? Don't like it? Well, now you know where the sign up sheet is.

As for why they can't just pay people to do it for them.......Jesus H. Christ. You might as well be asking Wikipedia to pay people to write a Featured Article.

I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying this is how they operate. If you don't know this shit, which is frankly BASIC knowledge of WikiNews, you're in no position to comment.

And never mind that, why were Australian based editors travelling to this event? You already know....
Quote:
The coverage of the IPC Nor-Am Cup at Copper Mountain in December matters in terms of seeking Olympic and Paralympic media access for the 2014 Sochi Games. Winter reporting is different than summer sport reporting. It is almost exclusively outside. Weather is a challenge. Temperature is a challenge. For photographs, there are high contrast issues. We need to successfully demonstrate competency in this area in order to convince the Australian Paralympic and Australian Olympic Committee to give media accreditation.
You fuckers will never get your accreditation in bin diving at this rate, not if you can't demonstrate competence in READING THE TRASH YOU UNCOVER. Not that this shit is hard to find, really. Not so much bin diving, as opening filing cabinets clearly marked 'the stuff you are looking for'. Stupid fuckers can't even do that properly.

Absolutely fucking clueless.


Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:13 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3208
Reply with quote
:lol:
Mendapiv wrote:
Wait a sec, what the hell is this Wikimedia Endowment crap supposed to do? And there's a separate board? What in the ever loving hell is this?!
Oh wow. So the dumb fuck who has been yammering on about the Foundation like they had a clue, doesn't know shit?

Yup. Wikipediocracy. The original ship of fools.


Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:38 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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.