Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:16 pm

He's saying stop and it's obvious that AT rescue argued with him,
Jason Scott appears to have initially solicited a discussion.
Offend an owner, on a wiki like that, you can expect your account will be toast.
ATrescue or Kyan never personally offended Jason Scott, as far as I have seen.
So what happened with ATrescue? Contributions. Very high contribution rate.
They should actually be grateful to have such a prolific editor there.

don't use the site unless you accept the authority.
Correct. But there is apparently no clear prior indication of joining a community that is run by a dicktator (pun intended, i.e. someone who behaves very hostile against his users).

But places such as https://Poal.co/s/ModAbuse are good for warning users.
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:12 pm

I understand that the user may have expected to be treated differently. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. However, perhaps before investing so much work in a site, might it be prudent to investigate who owns it and how it is managed?

It seems you have rules for human behavior that Mr. Scott does not accept. Does he have the right to be blunt? If it harms the site, who is harmed?

Now if he were to chase the user about the internet, this would take on an entirely different color. However, it does seem that the user might be chasing him. What result do you expect?

Without seeing the rest of that IRC transcript, I.e., what ATrescue said, I really have little opinion except what I wrote. I cannot tell if his response was "reasonable" or not.

Scott is an owner, behaving like an owner, and as an asshole. So what?

Look, they have a saying in AA, "All it takes to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." If you want to serve the cause of archiving, how about identifying others with the same goal and supporting their efforts -- aside from using that site. How about starting your own site? Registration as low as $2 for the first year. I just started wikitop.cc for that. And a virtual private server, $2 per month. But you will need much more storage, probably, if you want to host significant archives, but you can always use archive.is and archive.org.

Endless complaint about Scott will do nothing for you and your life, the opposite, it will trap you in resentment and blame and all that stuff that poisons our lives. If you want to document what happened, turn off your knee-jerk reactions and focus on fact and making it clearly organized and accessible. That can actually help heal trauma. That's a wiki. It could be covered on wikitop.cc. Unless you grossly troll, you will not be banned without clear defied warning. You will have high freedom in your user space there. PM me if you want an account.

Wikignomes can be useful there, but no matter how much "valuable work" you do, wikis are still communities and cooperation and collaboration are crucial. Discussion is necessary when there are conflicts, but don't take that as giving you a right to demand that others discuss if they don't want to. Rather, it's advice to you: discuss before imposing your will. Unless you are the owner, as Scott was on that site. Then you can pretty much do whatever the eff you please, since you are paying the server bills.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Criticism intolerance

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:31 pm

Tweet by Jason Scott, January 18 2020

It seems like Jason Scott has programmed a screenshotting software. Someone asked Jason to publish the source code, and Jason declined. Now, although he is by no means obligated to publish the source code, and it is entirely his personal decision, the reason he stated is:
@textfiles wrote:I don't need 1,000 feedbacks on how I did it "wrong".
. . . which does translate into:
I do not want to be criticized.
Although I do not intend to ridicule him, he proves once again that his ability to cope with criticism is not so great. And he may have passed a chance to potentially learn something new.
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Jason Scott unbannable on Wikipedia? Conversation with Jimbo in 2006

Post by CMAwatch » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:34 pm

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jscott :
I say go for it. We all have to pump our resumes wherever we can, Jimbo. --Jscott 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by that? Is there any particular reason why you think it's worthwhile to be snide to me? I have a strong interest in getting history right, and that does not include "pumping my resume" whatever that means. I think my record speaks for itself, there's no need to 'pump' anything. --Jimbo Wales 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, geez, I didn't even have a chance to spiff up the place before you dropped by!

I doubt I'm saying anything you haven't heard (and dismissed out of hand) before, Jimbo, but you are now eating the same dog food that many, many, many people are having to eat at the hands of your project. The rules that Wikipedia are currently following (which you have broken on notable occasions regarding both your entry and selected others) make it nearly impossible for people to have much control over entries on themselves, and in point of fact, the rules force a conspiracy of rejection of the person contributing things, even indirectly. Obviously, your stature within this community has allowed a lot of stuff to slide that other notables don't get, but your "founder" fight is just going to tarnish you without getting what you want, i.e. Larry Sanger's bullet-riddled body lying in a gutter somewhere.

By the way, I'm giving a small talk about your project at Notacon. (www.notacon.org) Speaking information is here at the bottom. You're more than invited to come; I'll even throw you a few bucks to get you to come by and join the festivities. Don't be shy. --Jscott 16:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another important note from 2008:
Your entire contribution history over the past four years amounts to nothing but an amalgam of self-promotional spam, vandalism, trolling, and harassment. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Can you think of any reason why we should keep you around here? east.718 at 10:06, February 24, 2008
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Jason Scott unbannable on Wikipedia? Conversation with Jimbo in 2006

Post by Abd » Mon Jul 20, 2020 11:59 pm

CMAwatch wrote:
Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:34 pm
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jscott :
[...]
Another important note from 2008:
Your entire contribution history over the past four years amounts to nothing but an amalgam of self-promotional spam, vandalism, trolling, and harassment. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Can you think of any reason why we should keep you around here? east.718 at 10:06, February 24, 2008
That is downright weird. east718 called Jscott a bonehead. It apparently went unnoticed. Only an insane wikipediot would compile so many diffs that will likely not be read. Someone with nothing better to do. Scott last edited in 2014. I didn't look thoroughly, but if nobody complains, civility violations will not automatically be detected.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

“The key to being a good critic” – @textfiles

Post by CMAwatch » Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:22 pm

#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Argumentum ad hominem

Post by CMAwatch » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:22 am

We already know that Jason Scott Sadofsky evidently is PISS-POOR at coping with criticism.

But here is yet another proof:

When one of the users Jason Scott banned responded with reasonable criticism and questions, Jason Scott reacted with:
Well, they're treating every line you wrote like a line in the constitution
I think they think they're going to get to rules-lawyer out of it
(2020-05-22 19:09)

Instead of actually logically addressing the criticism, he tried to distance himself from it using argumentum ad hominem. Another intuitive tactic of people who suck at coping with criticism, similarly to Bbb23, who labelled anything criticial of him as trolling. :lol:
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Jason Scott blocked Sfan00 in 2014

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:05 pm

SketchCoward who can not handle criticism sits in front of the same computer he created his Twitter account with, with a Muriel premium cigar in his mouth.

He find out that a new user named Sfan00 has added a page to ArchiveTeam's wiki: https://archiveteam.org/index.php?title ... ldid=18333

It appears constructive.

Then, out of nowhere, Sfan is blocked.

No reason given

Sfan00 appears to be one of the editors with the highest edit count on WMF projects.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... Sfan00_IMG
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Kyan lives.

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:39 am

After all the drama in 2016, and years of inactivity, Kyan has actually been editing in 2020 and is not blocked:

http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title= ... tions/Kyan

Maybe Jason Scott can't remember that 2016 scolding.
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

Post Reply