The main locked Wikipedia Page

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:41 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki ... discuss%21

Why do I spend a few minutes identifying a problem in the main Wikipeida page only to have it immediately deleted.
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:47 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... that_entry



Request for comments to change - paragraph 3 of this page <-please read the post and discuss!
==This is IMHO an Erroneous main point In the third paragraph of this entry, which because of its location is an article main point thereby a main criticism; Paragraph 3 of this page needs to be changed to be more accurate!

TO MAKE THIS CLEAR TO SOMEONE WHO CLEARLY HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THE MAIN POINT WITH THIS ENTRY! THE CRITICAL THINKING POINT. PARAGRAPH 3 Sentence ONE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED - THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON THE CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE OF WIKIPEDIA. I AM SUGGESTING A CHANGE CONGRUENT WITH ANOTHER SECTION OF WIKIPEDIA.


Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male. Edit-a-thons have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[9] In 2006 Time magazine stated that the open-door policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world, and was a testament to the vision of Jimmy Wales.[10] The project's reputation improved further in the 2010s as it increased efforts to improve its quality and reliability. In 2018 Facebook and YouTube announced that they would help users detect fake news by suggesting links to related Wikipedia articles.[11]


Criticism_of_Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines.

Why a change is important

1) The overview superset issues are correctly outlined in the Criticism of Wikipedia Page. 2) Yes Gender bias is important but it is a subset issue. The overview IMHO is process and accuracy of content with Gender bias being a relevant topic 3) Consistency between entries 4) 'Undue Weight' between process et al v Gender Bias 5) Bravery, Courage, Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility in acknowledging the major issues not just the currently popular concernZugzwangerone

(talk) 10:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:52 pm

WITHIN SECCONDS OF BEING BANNED.


Request for comments to change - paragraph 3 of this page <-please read the post and discuss!
I CANNOT EXPRESS TO THE FOLKS WHO ARE DELETING A LEGITIMATE CONCERN WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONTENT. PERHAPS I AM NOT BEING CLEAR THAT PARAGRAPH 3 LINE 1 OF THIS PAGE NEEDS TO CHANGE. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING THAT CHANGE? WHY SHOULD I DEDICATE EVEN AN IOTA OF MY LIFE DEALING WITH NONSENSE OF PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY OWN EVEN A COMMENTS SECTION.


==This is IMHO an Erroneous main point In the third paragraph of this entry, which because of its location is an article main point thereby a main criticism; Paragraph 3 of this page needs to be changed to be more accurate!

TO MAKE THIS CLEAR TO SOMEONE WHO CLEARLY HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THE MAIN POINT WITH THIS ENTRY! THE CRITICAL THINKING POINT. PARAGRAPH 3 Sentence ONE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED - THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON THE CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE OF WIKIPEDIA. I AM SUGGESTING A CHANGE CONGRUENT WITH ANOTHER SECTION OF WIKIPEDIA.


Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias, where the majority of editors are male. Edit-a-thons have been held to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[9] In 2006 Time magazine stated that the open-door policy of allowing anyone to edit had made Wikipedia the biggest and possibly the best encyclopedia in the world, and was a testament to the vision of Jimmy Wales.[10] The project's reputation improved further in the 2010s as it increased efforts to improve its quality and reliability. In 2018 Facebook and YouTube announced that they would help users detect fake news by suggesting links to related Wikipedia articles.[11]


Criticism_of_Wikipedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines.

Why a change is important

1) The overview superset issues are correctly outlined in the Criticism of Wikipedia Page. 2) Yes Gender bias is important but it is a subset issue. The overview IMHO is process and accuracy of content with Gender bias being a relevant topic 3) Consistency between entries 4) 'Undue Weight' between process et al v Gender Bias 5) Bravery, Courage, Integrity, Transparency, and Credibility in acknowledging the major issues not just the currently popular concernZugzwangerone

(talk) 10:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:24 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... pedia_page


MY REQUEST DEALS DIRECTLY with the content of Paragraph 3 Line 1 of Wikipedia page
ITS TOTALLY MINDLESS ARROGANCE ON YOUR PART NOT TO READ WHAT YOU ARE DELETING!Zugzwangerone (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zugzwangerone:Please do not attack other users. Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 15:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
So far on Wikipedia I have removed an entry pointing to Child Pornography! It is incredibly difficult to work with, and on behalf, of people that essentially own Wikipeida because of tenure, it is misusing a process as a bully... it is unacceptable I am totally exacerbated that the imperative is to delete first and never ask questions or think.
Zugzwangerone (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Zugzwangerone: Sounds like an assumption to me. In the pages where I edit, editors look at what someone did then reverting it. Please stay off my talk page. Lydïa (☎️ ◦ ✍) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:21 pm

And my request to discuss revevision is GONE again. WHAT A SURPRISE

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:17 am

ONE MORE (LAST) TRY ON THE MAIN PAGE OF WIKIPEDIA

"Gender Bias" Reads (Readability Issue) as the Primary Criticism of Wikipedia
I am outlining a structural concern within the article (Wikipedia) as written.

Third Paragraph Line One acknowledges criticism of Wikipedia but it does so incorrectly and therefore a change is needed

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias
What the above sentence is saying, in its placement and context, is that gender bias is second only to accuracy.
This differs from The highly referenced Article "Criticism of Wikipedia" [1]

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines. In addition conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies.
The main point of that article as written; Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes.
Gender Bias is not mentioned until the third sentence, as placed it is of minor importance. Its importance is further diluted because other concerns are mentioned.
The main point may be in the second sentence of the paragraph, The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing.
Conclusion Recommendation - Request for Comments

A contra-view of the topic in the form of criticism should be and is included in the third paragraph.
Wikipedia should maintain a NPOV when it talks about itself
The first sentence of the third paragraph should be changed as to be consistent with (the more accurate) "Criticism of Wikipedia Page" Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:27 am

I have removed your comments at Talk:Wikipedia because they are too hard to follow. That page is for discussion about improving the article Wikipedia. If you have a comment about the article, make a new section with a meaningful heading ("Gender bias"?) and start by quoting the text that you think should be changed. Do not use capitals. Do not express your feelings. Say what you think is wrong about the quoted text and what it should be why. Articles are based on reliable sources so it would help to give a couple of sources to support your proposal. Keep it short because other people have limited time and that should not be wasted. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am also having a hard time trying to figure out what this user is doing. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I am outlining a structural concern within the article. Zugzwangerone (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No. You are harassing other editors on their talk page on matters they seem to have nothing to do with, and you are ranting on various talk pages about matters that aren't clearly related to the article and that show a certain ignorance about Wikipedia and how it operates. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 274 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by wexter » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:14 am

Yes, that is what started me editing Wikipedia.Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

All your 110 contributions are shown in this link. Your first edit was at Mantal which seems to be a unit of measurement—I don't see any kind of pornography. Please be precise when making claims—what is the name of the article that had a link to pornography? That can happen when an article has a valid external link, but years later, the owner of the website does not renew their DNS entry, and a scammer then takes over the URL. The scammer can put anything on their website which an article might still link to. That problem affects all websites, not just Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I was editing under an IP address. Yes there was a link which led to Child Pornography. What was worse was the lack of process to work through the issue within Wikipedia. Terrance Duffy may have been an earlier edit which was owned by his in house pr dept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8c ... k_to_8chan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_A._Duffy

Look, my conclusion is that it takes tons of work to stop Wikipedia from disappearing or being hijacked by whoever wants to edit it. It's an unwinnable battle. Administrators are stuck protecting Wikipedia content because it was designed to be open. The operating culture is opposite of open, it is a closed culture by necessity.

Wikipedia is closed to new editors, introspection, correction, and critical thinking. The content is flawed even on the main page.

My perception, bottom line, is that Wikipidia functions as a social network for folks who have been involved with it for years. If you want to spend years of your life on Wikipedia that is totally ok.

There is no mechanism for fixing the unfixable. Zugzwangerone (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

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: The main locked Wikipedia Page

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:49 am

Again: you are wasting your time. Arguing with asshole admins like Johnuniq and Drmies will simply get your account banned. They won't fix anything unless someone in their circles points it out.

Post Reply