Jimmy Wales on Times Radio just now

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

Jimmy Wales on Times Radio just now

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:10 am

Usual fluff, interviewer not really asking any probing questions, sounded like he had been prepped by Jimmy himself, including the use of phrases like "benevolent dictator'. Although to be fair, mid morning Tuesday isn't exactly the right slot for hard hitting journalism. But still....

Jimmy first spoke about this recent edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1020005549

...rightly regretting how much time he had spent on such utter nonsense. But of course, not explaining why others should be doing it either, let alone donating money to ensure it persists as a global hobby.

Seems like the whole interview was designed to promote the obviously false narrative that Women In Red are now the way Wikipedia plans to close the gender gap. He went on to cover lots of other stuff, but it was conspicuous that he led with this.

Hilariously, told the interviewer that the best way he could fix his own wiki bio, was to send an email or use the talk page. Jimmy himself knows from his own editing, that this is a complete waste of time, at least the talk page route. Nobody cares. And why should people have to send emails, just to stop Wikipedia printing obvious bulshit about them?

The presenter declined that offer, preferring the current situation - his bio, although incorrect, is currently a little noticed stub, and so he rightly feared what the Wikishits and vandals might do, if it came to wider attention.

Jimmy said nothing, expressed no shame at all at just how many of the radio staff said their own bios were false, or that the pervasive attitude is not to engage with Wikipedia, lest that make things worse.

Jimmy was actually fairly honest in what Wikipedia is in other respects - a haven for geeks who are merely trying but often failing to be good people.

His excuse for all of Wikipedia's ills, nowadays seems to be, hey, we're only human. We're mostly good, just not perfect, etc.

The primary criticism of Wikipedia of course being, you obviously can't make an encyclopedia if the only entry qualification is "Are you a human?". The truth to that statement being how much of Wikipedia is now necessarily written and maintained by bots. And the obvious difference between the disclaimers on EB and Wikipedia, is that one makes a believable case that errors really are only meant to be rare and unavoidable, happy to stake their reputation on their accuracy. The other, well, meh.

Had the absolute gall to claim "fake news" on Wikipedia still refers to how they wouldn't let "Pope endorses Trump" on Wikipedia. Bullshit, obviously. It's now about not letting the words of the UK Prime Minister appear on Wikipedia if they only appeared in the Daily Mail.

Naturally he wasn't asked about this, because that's not part of the discourse surrounding Wikipedia bias, because Wikipedia is immensely succesful at obscuring what happens on Wikipedia.

What pisses me off about that? Well, I know for a fact Jimmy Wales has been told that Wikipedia would not use the Mail as a source, not even for an interview with the British PM. He flatly denied it. Asshole.

"Our methodology is open, thoughtful discourse."

Yeah, fuck off Jimmy.

I wouldn't expect anyone on Wikipediocracy to have even heard this interview, because much like wikishits themselves, they wouldn't typically be listening to right wing media. Except to find flaws with right wing media. No such flaws were on display here, at least none that aren't also present in The Guardian et al. Reliable sources aren't all that reliable these days, simply out of disinterest, not for topics that people perhaps rightly consider as unimportant fluff.

The UK government often says things that are "completely nonsense" claimed Jimmy. They criticise end to end encryption, is his example! As usual, protecting freedom of speech is prioritised over protecting children. How very Wikipedia.

The problem is the media. They don't look into Wikipedia at the depth they do for Facebook et al. Part of that of course is that in interviews exactly like this, Jimmy is able to keep pushing the obviously false narrative that the differences between Wikipedia and Facebook et al, are good things.

They are not. I'll take being able to question Mark Zuckerberg in Congress over being unable to question "Beeblebrox" at Wikipedia AND Wikipediocracy any day.

Beeblebrox knows the truth, he knows Jimmy Wales is flat wrong in his belief (his on the record statement) that Wikipedia would print the words of the UK Prime Minister even if they only appeared in the Daily Mail.

They would not. Citing the Daily Mail ban. Specifically, their claim that if something only appears in the Mail, then by definition, not only is there a high likelihood it is false ("generally unreliable"), that exclusivity would be definitive proof it isn't worth mentioning in Wikipedia (because other allegedly far more reliable sources, such as The Times?!?, would independently fact check it).

This is the real, true, but sadly unreported, settled view of the left biased Wikipedia community. This is their consensus, even if sometimes it can only be enforced by the brute force of Arbitrators like Beeblebrox and Admins like David Gerard and Guy Chapman.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1959

And this is not a fanciful hypothetical idea either, this is no "what if Biden spoke to Breitbart/National Enquirer/NY Post?" type scenario. I have posted before about how and why the Mail is often able to secure exclusive interviews with Boris Johnson....

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1950#p19666

....interviews that you can guarantee aren't going to be fully reprinted and totally fact checked by other sources, for rather obvious reasons of commercial and legal reality as it pertains to the news media.

Beeblebrox will NEVER tell the truth about this lie told by Jimmy to anyone except where people aren't looking - in out of the way obscure internal Wikipedia talk pages where the content of Wikipedia articles are decided between the insiders, or where decisions to ban people who want to use the Mail as a source, are made. Even though he is one of the fifteen most powerful, democratically elected, supposed communtiy representatives and guardians of Wikipedia policy.

You could challenge him about this evident disconnect between what he knows to be true and what Jimmy thinks is true, on Wikipediocracy, where Beeblebrox spends a lot of his time these days, but their Board Admin, Jake the Sell0ut, will just ban you.

Wikipediocracy are as afraid of the truth coming out as Wikipedia is. Jake is as much of a die hard left is best wanker as any wikishit. This is perhaps why he often claims to have never edited Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if he not only has, but is a deeply immersed and very powerful left biased actor, of equal rank to say, Guy Chapman. If that were admitted, it would utterly destroy Wikipediocracy's already thin claim to be independent and a genuine believer in neutrality.

Wikipedia is built and sustained on a house of media fed lies, and in many ways, Jimmy is as much of a victim as anyone, since whatever else he says that he might know or reasonably believe is false, I do think he genuinely believes Wikipedia would print the words of the UK Prime Minister if it only came from the Mail, per WP:IAR.

It's bullshit.

Just like any and all claims that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a force for good, is eminent bullshit.

It is what it is, what Jimmy largely admits it is. An imperfect vehicle for free culture leftist geeks to spread their biased message as if it were sensible neutrality, a way to get around the fact no serious news media or encyclopedia would present it as the neutral point of view.

Facebook et al adopting end to end encryption does pose a risk to children, and in a healthy functioning democracy, a newspaper is allowed to print that as a valid political opinion, people are allowed to buy it and read it, and they do in their millions, and so you would expect a neutral encyclopedia to include it in their content. Not as the truth, but a valid argument, presented alongside notable people on the, left who have held board positions on The Guardian et al, decrying it as "nonsense".

Not possible on Wikipedia. Only one side will be printed there, if at all. Because Beeblebrox/Wikipediocracy far more than Jimmy, much that it might come as shock to the Grand Wizard himself.

Post Reply