Wikipedia Sucks!

Not just our ordinary stupid teenager-posting-dicks vandalism.

For example, we have this, reverted in less than 60 seconds by ClueBot
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =937953213
which was thence posted on Facebook and lol

How's this for stupid?

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/senate- ... peachment/

Was "Flyboyrob2112" aka Bruce Halperin instab& for making bad Wiki-Publicity? What do you think?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flyboyrob2112

Were the revisions deleted, because "DESTROY ALL EVIDENCE in spite of the Daily Dot story"? Hells skippy.

20:06, 31 January 2020 diff hist -413‎ User talk:Flyboyrob2112 ‎ (edit summary removed)
20:05, 31 January 2020 diff hist -3,976‎ United States Senate ‎ (edit summary removed) Tag: Undo
20:02, 31 January 2020 diff hist -3,976‎ United States Senate ‎ (edit summary removed) Tag: Undo
20:00, 31 January 2020 diff hist -3,976‎ United States Senate ‎ (edit summary removed) Tag: Undo
19:58, 31 January 2020 diff hist -3,976‎ United States Senate ‎ (edit summary removed) Tag: Undo

Found on Facebook: I went thru the Bloomberg article history. It's full of editwarring by Wp insiders like SPECIFICO, and with sock accounts that appear to be Bloomberg representatives (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... raoptimus1).

However: i could NOT find any trace of this probably-2019 userbox edit shown above. Oversighted?

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:52 am

Found on Facebook:
hahabloomberg.jpg
I went thru the Bloomberg article history. It's full of editwarring by Wp insiders like SPECIFICO, and with sock accounts that appear to be Bloomberg representatives (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... raoptimus1).

However: i could NOT find any trace of this probably-2019 userbox edit shown above. Oversighted?

No. I looked at every edit from Feb 19 until I found it. Long term user, had to be autoconfirmed because of page protection, blocked indef for vandalism from this. No effing sense of humor. It lasted for three minutes.

There are ways to greatly increase the longevity of vandalism, but I'm not about to describe them. Don't put beans up your nose. I've never tried the methods, but I found quite old vandalism and looked at how it was created. Worse, in fact, is source misrepresentation that feeds common beliefs.

what the hell is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Bae

(He's got a new restaurant. Look at the prices on the menu.)

Back on the main point here, Wikipedia could easily have made it so that nobody would be fed a vandalized page who wasn't deliberately reviewing unaccepted revisions, but the community rejected flagged revisions. They could have made the encyclopedia truly reliable -- deeper then and at least as reliable as the Brittanica -- but . . . dumb won. Or what was it?

Who benefited from the Way it Went?

I'm working on the Esperanza document from your book, and it reminds me so much of how Wikipedia dysfunction was enforced, how massive inefficiency was "the way we do things," and structure that would have created responsibility was crushed as "bureaucracy."

They literally crushed Hope.

For the record, "gee bag" is extremely rude Irish slang but unknown anywhere else

she found another one