Regarding own, you also mention that the article is slightly more Parrot of Doom's... so I don't think you can really argue that the forking or spooning or whatever is really his fault entirely? Or can you... I haven't looked at the oldest diffs...
But donating their baby to EP? No problem. (Well at least not EC's part of it...)
In any case, the silence at the Gender Desk is surprising. They must be preoccupied. ^^
Eric Corbett
Re: Eric Corbett
EP?sashi wrote:Regarding own, you also mention that the article is slightly more Parrot of Doom's... so I don't think you can really argue that the forking or spooning or whatever is really his fault entirely? Or can you... I haven't looked at the oldest diffs...
But donating their baby to EP? No problem. (Well at least not EC's part of it...)
In any case, the silence at the Gender Desk is surprising. They must be preoccupied. ^^
For the purposes of OWN etc, you can consider Eric and PoD to be one person. Their reasons for keeping that article separate will be the same.
Re: Eric Corbett
Someone's feeling brave.If Vigilant was to return then I would leave again. His attack-dog style, which seemed to be encouraged by Zoloft, was nothing more than harassment and bullying.
Re: Eric Corbett
Eric wrote:Is it? I've never found it to be so.Kumioko wrote:Wikipedia is a addictive after all.
Total edits (not including sock-puppets): 190,930
That total by itself puts him at around 150 in the all-time list of Wikipedians by edit count. It's insane when you realise he didn't run a bot and wasn't involved in any activity where you can rack up lots of edits with little thought.
The monthly average of 1,414 makes it look even worse. That average would look even worse if you ignored the two years he spent averaging around 100 edits a month (June 2015 - June 2017).
What ultimately proves Eric was addicted, is that the times he has experienced reduced activity levels, when looking at the monthly figures, they are just as easily explained as giant sulks or illness/incapacity, than any natural profile of someone gradually losing interest, like it was a conscious choice to disengage. He didn't ramp down, and he didn't ramp up. His wilderness period was all over the place, like he didn't have any idea of what his relationship to the site was or should be, other than he must stay engaged, somehow, some way. He was like a zombie in that period, doing trivial edits and not acknowledging anyone. The manner of his ultimate departure, having reached prior activity levels, before quitting cold turkey, suggests he reached a crisis point. As all addicts eventually do. And of course, since he was famous for claiming he was done forever, before returning within the month, just like an addict, when he eventually left, if he has, nobody took it seriously at all, not until it seemed pretty silly to express condolences.
-
AndrewForson
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am
Re: Eric Corbett
CrowsNest wrote:[...]Eric wrote:Is it? I've never found it to be so.Kumioko wrote:Wikipedia is a addictive after all.
You've fallen for the fallacy of extension. In this case in the formal sense of extending "Wikipedia is addictive", in the sense of many, most or the typical players are addicted" being illegitimately extended to "all Wikipedia players are addicted". Eric then validly controverts the extended assertion by exhibiting a single counter-example, in this case himself. The correct refutation is along the lines of "Lucky you, then, but we're talking about the generality of players who are clearly not so lucky", or "Really? You can't be so very observant then" or, if you want to be more cutting, "sure, sure, you do a lot of Wikipedia, but you've got it under control", if you get the required degree of sarcasm into your keystrokes, implying that the claimed counter-example is in fact evidence for the unextended proposition. The extension intentionally invites, and in this case gets, a squabble about the merits of the claimed counter-example. In this case, you're probably correct in that the alleged counter-example is no counter-example at all, but the discussion is successfully derailed.
Grade: B. The proffered distraction was successfully rebutted, but should not have been accepted at all.
Re: Eric Corbett
pretty hard....?Dysklyver wrote:Now he seems to be an expert on PhD's...
Blow their tiny minds and remind them Drmies for tenure for his Wikipedia edits, so a PhD should be a piece of piss.
Look at Carrite, laughing at the idea you can get academic recognition from editing. He's got no clue what really goes on. As well shitbirds like Drmies, there's a whole offshoot of the cult working toward the specific goal of allowing academics to get professional credit for 'publishing' on Wikipedia. Make a his efforts to simply use it to get people to buy his self-published history books look pretty lame.
-
AndrewForson
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am
Re: Eric Corbett
CrowsNest wrote:[...] there's a whole offshoot of the cult working toward the specific goal of allowing academics to get professional credit for 'publishing' on Wikipedia.[...]
Extraordinary. Might as well get credit for writing on toilet walls. Where is this delusion being fostered?
Re: Eric Corbett
CrowsNest wrote:pretty hard....?Dysklyver wrote:Now he seems to be an expert on PhD's...
Blow their tiny minds and remind them Drmies for tenure for his Wikipedia edits, so a PhD should be a piece of piss.
Look at Carrite, laughing at the idea you can get academic recognition from editing. He's got no clue what really goes on. As well shitbirds like Drmies, there's a whole offshoot of the cult working toward the specific goal of allowing academics to get professional credit for 'publishing' on Wikipedia. Make a his efforts to simply use it to get people to buy his self-published history books look pretty lame.
Drmies made a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to further his academic career. Readers might like to look at Marinka van Dam's page on his bio of Barbara Wiedemann http://marinkavandam.com/barbara-wiedemann.html . Wiedemann was a colleague of his on his faculty and an entirely undistinguished poet who at the time Mies profiled her had produced a single pamphlet of frankly rather poor poems and never went on to publish a single book of verse, even vanity published. Nevertheless Mies contrived to provide a bio of hers. In return Wiedemann was one of two faculty members who 'persuaded' Mies to list his Wikipedia edits as 'research' when applying for tenure. But of course a core tenet of Wikipedia is that it's not a vehicle for original research!
Marinka's website is lapsing at the end of October. It's fully archived on Wayback Machine.
Re: Eric Corbett
An interesting detail that has somehow escaped my attention. Although why I would be surprised that his being awarded tenure could have just been a simple misguided error and not itself a product of corruption, escapes me. I need to work on my ABF levels, they are clearly not calibrated properly. *selects Level 12 setting*Larkin wrote:In return Wiedemann was one of two faculty members who 'persuaded' Mies to list his Wikipedia edits as 'research' when applying for tenure.