Dumbass talks about utopia of Wikipedia

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

Dumbass talks about utopia of Wikipedia

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:04 pm

As usual, the most important part of a typically uninformed largely praiseworthy media piece highlighted on Wikipedocracy, was completely missed by Poetlister. Stupid fuck.

http://www.businessworld.in/article/Wik ... 21-387601/
Business World
Wikipedia – The Utopia That Survived And Thrived
Shubhranshu Singh
The author is a global marketer, story teller, brand builder, columnist, and business leader. His interests include studying social change, impact of technology on consumer lives, understanding young consumers, history and politics.

For it's not exactly unheard of for writers to praise the fact Wikipedia is supposedly not for profit (no longer true) or remind us, as if it's somehow just a nice to have for an encyclopedia, that even after twenty years, it still has issues with being accessible, up to date, comprehensive or even referenced.

But it concludes, of course, that it's better than the alternative, which is apparently Facebook et al, not EB et al. Dumbass.

As he makes clear, he probably only uses Wikipedia when he's Googling for background info for his shitty journalism, or to assist in his banal office conversations. Wanker.

But it was this one line that struck me as really odd.....
It has many challenges .... It needs to provide a 'fact checker' editorial structure.... But it has the momentum to solve for these issues. 

It's Wikipedia, you dumb cunt.

Depending on your philosophy, they either don't do fact checking (the reader is their own fact checker, as the legal disclaimer makes clear), or every contributor is also a fact checker.

That existing model is clearly bankrupt, and he almost correctly figures out that this model only even has half a chance of working on the relatively small part of Wikipedia that attracts any attention. He naturally shows no awareness of the issues that mean that even highly watched pages are often erroneous.

So what could he mean? I am aware of absolutely no community will to usher in a new era of fact checking, however he proposes it be done, and indeed, they are highly likely to vehemently resist any such proposal, risking as it does, the thing Wikishits value most - their ability to publish knowledge instantly, as both its author (publisher) and its editor (fact checker).

Pending changes exists, of course, but might as well not, given the absolutely tiny amount of articles it is apllied to. It is not a structure for fact checking, only a floodgate against obvious vandalism and dick pics. Otherwise known in the encyclopedia business, as the interview stage.

Wikipedia in the main, is and will remain what the Founder conceived it as. In terms of fact checking editorial structure, if you're bored and want to waste some time, then maybe you too, can contribute expertise like this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List ... ut_Alabama

...to fact check pointless trivia that nobody ever wanted , needed or even really asked to be hosted by an encyclopedia, but otherwise somehow found its way there, because why the fuck not?

It's quite rightly true that there is no venture capital or evil capitalist rushing for the right to compete with Wikipedia's absolute monopoly in this vital information space.

Doesn't make it a utopia. A neat way to keep social misfits and general idiots away from the rest of us, maybe.

Wikipedia doesn't want or indeed need do fact checking, that is why there never was and never will be an editorial structure of any kind, to support it. That is the one part of the old encyclopedia model that they needed to discard to succeed, because to do it, would have exposed the truth of their existence - THEY ARE NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.

They briefly had a way for readers to rate articles. They dumped it, because WIKIPEDIA EDITORS got sad at being constantly told, quite rightly, that their work was UTTER WORTHLESS SHIT to anyone who approached Wikipedia as if it were, y'know, a fucking encyclopedia.

Scum like Beeblebrox cannot handle being told they are retards and their chosen cause is an immoral affront to the progress of humanity. They prefer to hide in the safe space of Wikipediocracy, a forum which will happily reinforce their delusions.

With people like Poetlister part of the furniture there, you can see why a piece of shit like Beeblebrox saw no downsides to taking up residence.

Post Reply