"Wikipedia At 20"

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

"Wikipedia At 20"

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:12 pm

The 20th anniversary is still 3 months away, yet the sniveling about Wiki-Magic has already begun.

https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a344 ... dia-at-20/

Obviously Mr. Garfield loves it. And has clearly never watched AN/I, arbitration pages, or talkpages for contentious articles closely.

And he has a very nice, if poorly written and short, article. "Wiki friendly" journalists have received similar favorable treatment. I seriously wonder if Garfield has an admin-level sockpuppet/friend that has done many major edits to his article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michig

And if he's edited it himself and directly (and gotten away with it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Simonfrank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... .8.143.112

Garfield also doesn't appear to have seen this article. Only two years old, grossly incomplete, and editwarred brutally by major insiders. Fucking shitbird Doug Weller is on the scene to remove "bad statements" about WP -- again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologic ... _Wikipedia
An attempt to delete this in 2018 attracted the usual petty pricks, nearly all of whom screamed DELETE. Yet they failed anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Wikipedia

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: "Wikipedia At 20"

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:50 pm

How does one tell when a Wiki-Jackoff is "important"? When said jackoff gets quoted in WIRED magazine?
Wikipedia administrators will rely on a watchlist of “articles on all the elections in all the states, the congressional districts, and on a large number of names of people involved one way or another,” wrote Drmies, an administrator who helps watch over political articles.

Per Wednesday’s change, anyone editing the article about November’s election must have had a registered account for more than 30 days and already made 500 edits across the site. “I am hoping this will reduce the issue of new editors trying to change the page to what they believe to be accurate when it doesn’t meet the threshold that has been decided,” wrote Molly White, a software engineer living in Boston known on Wikipedia as GorillaWarfare, who put the order in place. The protection for that article, she wrote, was meant to keep away bad actors as well as overly exuberant editors who feel the “urge to be the ones to introduce a major fact like the winner of a presidential election.”
https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias- ... formation/

Post Reply