Wikipedia Sucks!

It's utterly cracked....

https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1770426026331443478

Sanger has been wrecking his standing as The Hidden King of Wikipedia if you just read his Twitter account.

At this point, I would not be surprised if he goes completely off the bend and becomes an Insane Street Preacher.

https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1770430949332836524

The Saville ranting continues.

lol, that's gonna bite Larry in the ass someday.....funny how X-Shitter makes people "uninhibited". Then they start posting paranoid ravings. All to be "noticed".

The British royals just loved the hell out of Savile, and cheerfully covered up any complaints about his sexual abuse. He was one of "their people". A poor Catholic lad from Leeds who made good, and was great at public image manipulation.

So hes finding out about Jimmy Saville now? Wait until he finds out about dark side of Wikipedia.

Dr Mario wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:00 pm

So hes finding out about Jimmy Saville now? Wait until he finds out about dark side of Wikipedia.

To him everything is the dark side

Stierlitz wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2024 1:00 pm

It's utterly cracked....

https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1770426026331443478

Sanger has been wrecking his standing as The Hidden King of Wikipedia if you just read his Twitter account.

At this point, I would not be surprised if he goes completely off the bend and becomes an Insane Street Preacher.

Both Sanger and Wales just appear to be random web1.0 guys who were in the right place at the right time and possibly nothing else. People who were planning on competing like GNUpedia either gracefully let them have center stage and others like htg2g were a bit too jokey.

But neither Sanger or Wales appear to be rational thought leaders of any kind. Like you imply, Sanger reminds of a crazy uncle. Also, Wales' interviews and speeches don't even exceed the level of a brand ambassador. He just mindlessly repeats the general consensus on Wikipedia, asserts its reasonable and keeps going.

journo wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:11 pm

Both Sanger and Wales just appear to be random web1.0 guys who were in the right place at the right time and possibly nothing else. People who were planning on competing like GNUpedia either gracefully let them have center stage and others like htg2g were a bit too jokey.

But neither Sanger or Wales appear to be rational thought leaders of any kind. Like you imply, Sanger reminds of a crazy uncle. Also, Wales' interviews and speeches don't even exceed the level of a brand ambassador. He just mindlessly repeats the general consensus on Wikipedia, asserts its reasonable and keeps going.

Correct. The damn thing fell on their heads, and they did NOT know how to manage it. Still don't. Sanger ran Nupedia in a heavy-handed manner and it failed. So he said "hell with it, throw it wide open". Which worked but created a raft of different problems. Many of them purely the fault of Jimbo -- thanks to amazingly bad decisions he made prior to 2006. One of which was forcing Sanger out, then trying to "rewrite history" to minimize Sanger's role.

Neither of them is a "great visionary", or a super-genius, or even "original idea men". Being nothing at this point but an unpaid yet self-aggrandizing "brand ambassador", all Wales can do is push the version of WP history that makes HIM look good. And as a forced-out insider, Sanger can only sit and stew. None of this creates a "reference database" of real value.

Funny how we never talk about Ben Kovitz, who went to lunch with Sanger in 2001. That was when Wikipedia really started (and not as a vague concept people had been bringing up for decades prior). Do you ever see anyone asking Kovitz about his role, or what he thinks of the result? He's not difficult to find. Unlike Wales and Sanger, he seems to prefer keeping his mouth shut. Good idea.
https://computerscience.humboldt.edu/people/ben-kovitz