Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
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: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:12 pm

Any such "commons" would have to be run by monks or someone who is unlikely to fight over political biases. The current administration is hopeless.

Personally i think Carlson is a toxic-yet-smooth liar. But Larry has to take whatever public attention he can get. Imagine if the angry American right decides to go on a serious, well-funded crusade to purge Wikipedia of its "leftist bias" or whatever gets their base moving. If they spent 1% of the effort expended to venerate Trump this year they could ruin Wikipedia. Very doubtful it will happen but one never knows.

Enough DDOS attacks will pull English Wikipedia down for weeks at a time. Other languages, Commons, Wiktionary etc. will probably go with it. And since it's all run on a shoestring with assorted free software, it is probably vulnerable to serious hacker assaults. All that $$$ in the bank, and all those thoughtless stans, might or might not help it to survive. I seriously doubt they realize how vulnerable they really are.

This happened 2 years ago, which was barely reported in the "mainstream". And it was apparently just a botnet operator showing off to "impress people". I fully expect the WMF tried to hush this up.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/0 ... os-attack/

User avatar
NadirAli
Sucks Fan
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by NadirAli » Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:37 am

As legit his criticism may be, his own encyclopedia is also inaccurate. Even worse is the edits take forever to be processed.

Same for Britannica. I tried editing it and it's a nightmare. Those who control it are less knowledgeable on the subject and more opinionated on it.

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: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:35 pm

NadirAli wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:37 am
As legit his criticism may be, his own encyclopedia is also inaccurate. Even worse is the edits take forever to be processed.
Same for Britannica. I tried editing it and it's a nightmare. Those who control it are less knowledgeable on the subject and more opinionated on it.
Get used to that. Apparently every encyclopedia ever created had similar internal editor squabbling. WP is the biggest (and the most dysfunctional!) so it has the most squabbling. Presto!

Anyone remember "Wikipedia is failing" from 2007? Originally created by Worldtraveller, a good editor who was forced out by admin assholes who didn't like criticism. Look at the history--repeatedly it was either vandalized, or some officious Wikishit cultist would show up and try to make it "more positive". I've heard similar things happen in the Britannica offices. We just don't hear about them because they're kept private.

User avatar
NadirAli
Sucks Fan
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by NadirAli » Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:34 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Thu Aug 26, 2021 10:35 pm
Get used to that. Apparently every encyclopedia ever created had similar internal editor squabbling. WP is the biggest (and the most dysfunctional!) so it has the most squabbling. Presto!
In that case we better get used to Wikipedia
Anyone remember "Wikipedia is failing" from 2007? Originally created by Worldtraveller, a good editor who was forced out by admin assholes who didn't like criticism. Look at the history--repeatedly it was either vandalized, or some officious Wikishit cultist would show up and try to make it "more positive". I've heard similar things happen in the Britannica offices. We just don't hear about them because they're kept private.
Encyclopedias should abstain probably from publishing stuff on history, politics etc. and stick to undeniable stuff. They should leave politics & history to the media and historians.

Wikipedia could have protected it's reputation by citing differing opinions, but all they did was leave it to democratization. And if other people are called in to counter the majority, it becomes "meat-puppetry" & "canvassing."

It seems even Jimbo doesn't know WIki-polcy that it's apparently not a democracy. He said on a BBC interview "we're on open democracy." :whambo:

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: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:54 am

NadirAli wrote:
Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:34 am
It seems even Jimbo doesn't know WIki-polcy that it's apparently not a democracy. He said on a BBC interview "we're on open democracy." :whambo:
He's lied so many times he literally doesn't know what the "truth" is. In fact WP is a cult and a corrupt military dictatorship--and HE MADE IT THAT WAY. No one else.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Larry Sanger harshly criticizes Wikipedia

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:23 pm

Wikipedia is a democracy. Like America is a democracy.

There's nothing in a democratic system that says the electorate has to be educated, the candidates have to be good people, and the government has to be working for the good of humanity.

Bill Maher recently tried to make the case that while America isn't perfect, it isn't terrible either. His comparison? The worst countries on Earth, obviously. Naturally, the recent influx of Afghan immigrants will think America is fantastic, due to the lack of openly armed religious fundamentalist on street corners. No, wait, for the lack of random extrajudicial killings by government actors. No wait, I'll remember what the reason was soon... :lol: :?

No, but yes, he obviously had a case. America is not comparable to Saudia Arabia or the Philippines. Mostly.

Compare America to any of the mature European democracies however, and it's a fucking basket case. And most of the things that make it so, are uniquely American.

It was pretty funny, because he opened the piece with the news that the Taliban had recently executed someone for being a comedian. He made the case that that couldn't happen in America.

No?

Are you sure, Bill?

Earlier in the show, he had of course highlighted some of the fucked up things going on in America right now, that he had apparently forgotten by the time of his trademark end piece. Angry crowds surrounding public officials threatening them with the fact that they know where they live. Why? They don't like their democratic decision to mandate masks in schools.

I normally love Bill Maher, but he has one huge flaw. He is American.

Surprisingly enough for a Dem, he owns a gun, for his personal protection. It is his right, as an American, he says proudly. And I half suspect it's because he fears the British are coming back. Which, tbf, we really should. Civilise the place again.

Not exactly a huge leap though, these days, to think he may need to use that one day because the angry mob sure knows where he lives. While Bill is not exactly pro-Covid measures, he is of course heavily anti-Trump. He won't admit it perhaps, but I would be surprised in that environment, if he isn't already self censoring, or second guessing what he says. And that's Bill Maher!

So yeah, OK Bill. If you'd have grown up in the UK, or Denmark, or Spain, you might see how you come across as a bit of a loon yourself. Because to us, you really don't look like you're all that better off than if you lived in one of those shithole countries.

He normally spots the differences between the US and Europe, on things like what a bunch of fat car dependent bastards Americans are. But strangely not on the matters of instant life or death. The obsession with guns, Bill, it's not healthy.

Afghan civilians are certainly a lot less safe now, because the Taliban have got themselves some of that sweet sweet AR-15 FREEDOM, because American democracy mandated that two Vietnams in a Century isn't enough Vietnams.

Wait, is America the new Russia? :shock:

An evil origin story, a sham democracy, a shit post war military record, despite an economy based on military industrialisation, a national identity wedded to the exportation of a warped unhealthy culture, and the makers of guns that are recognisable around the world as the tool of roving murder gangs, a.k.a., the national police or army.

Did I even need to look up who armed Duerte's death squads that Maher used as an example of a place to live that's worse than the US? The men killing the people doing his "old job", drug dealing.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/06/ ... pment/amp/

Democracy. Not as easy as it seems. Much like building encyclopedias.

Would a second term Trump have sent the US military to go around executing drug dealers? Nah. Would he have diverted Pentagon funds to some sham charitable Christian Community Traditional Values organisation set up by some nutjob bikers to achieve pretty much the same purpose? Hell yeah he would have. Even though it's the bikers who do a shit load of drug dealing, no?

Fucking millions of votes in that crazy ass stupid shit. Duerte is a democratically elected President after all.

Post Reply