Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:56 pm

The Rambling Man announced at 23:46 on 13 February that he would be away on holiday until 10 March, and he has since made reference to Vienna, Dubai and Australia, suggesting it is a once in a lifetime trip to far flung places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =882776092

Since placing that notice, in 12 days he has racked up 1,000 edits precisely, not including one he made at 23:48 on the 13th.

Something tells me that wherever he is, what is outside the hotel room simply can't compete with his Wikipedia addiction.

Genuinely sad.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:48 am

It speaks volumes that the Wikipedians FREAKED THE FUCK OUT when someone started distributing this survey......

1. What makes you edit Wikipedia?
2. How much time do you spend editing each day?
3. How often do you find yourself in disputes?
4. Do you believe you are wasting your time and have Wikipedia addiction?
5. What kind of activities you find yourself devoted into most in this community?
6. Does contributing to Wikipedia affect your personal life?
7. What are your views on the future of Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Immo ... r_survey_1
http://archive.is/6fRqS

This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals,
:?

Stop spamming your survey on everyone's talk page

or I will block you from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: So how I collect? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't. You find something productive to do, and do that instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
:roll:

There doesn't seem to be any point to the "survey" except your own curiosity. And I see that you have been threatened with a block for spamming this announcement onto multiple user talk pages. In the future, if you want to do something like this I would suggest you check with an experienced user or two, to see if it is a good idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
:twisted:

Sensitive folks, these Wikipedians. Some interesting interpretations of 'not related to Wikipedia ', 'not productive', 'spamming' and 'bad idea'. Still, crazy addicts of course won't respond very well to reality shining in on their miserable existence, and won't stop to think how ridiculous these reactions sound, either in isolation, or when compared to what they have to say in response to the sort of utterly pointless shite they happily do tolerate from "experienced" users, or indeed what they let them get away with before they even contemplate permanent exile from the island.

This comes from the very same wrapped perceptions of their own existence that saw them happily reinterpret the Terms of Use to classify investigative journalists asking questions about Wikipedia governance, as undeclared paid editors, as a pretext to banning them.

Thou shalt not burst that bubble. The bubble is nice. The bubble is warm and cosy. The bubble is their defence mechanism. It's some Freudian shit, that's for sure.

Burst that bubble, people. By any means necessary.

HTD.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:19 pm

> survey solely and entirely about Wikipedia
> should be deleted as not related to Wikipedia

Wikipedian logic 101. :roll:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:19 am

Seriously, what the fuck?
.....As I explained to everyone who asked me to become an administrator, in greater or lesser detail, is that my reluctance stemmed from serious family problems. I have a 29 year old son with a variety of genetic physical and intellectual disabilities, complicated by mental illness. For nearly 30 years, I have dealt with crisis after crisis with him, struggling to get him to a semblance of stability. My wife, who is also disabled though less seriously, feared that I was taking involvement with Wikipedia too far, in an escapist effort to evade responsibility for dealing with my son's problems. Perhaps she had a point. My other son expressed similar concerns, and my wife and this son and I operate a small business together. So, this was something that I had to work out within my immediate family, and when they agreed that they were comfortable with the idea, I agreed to put my name forward. ...... Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
He won them over in the end.? Scary to think how that conversation might have gone.

Escapism will be exactly what it is all about for him. Other people have to suffer, the other editors and the readers of Wikipedia, just so he can deal with the shit going on in his life, or not, as it sounds more like it. It is the Wikipedia way. "Wikipedia is not therapy", except it so is, for every last one of them.

User avatar
wikipedoidiots
Sucks
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:13 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by wikipedoidiots » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:21 pm

Get the load-down on wikipedoidiots, check my great contributions on wikiaddicts: https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Specia ... pedoidiots 8-) :mrgreen:

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by Strelnikov » Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:17 am

wikipedoidiots wrote:Get the load-down on wikipedoidiots, check my great contributions on wikiaddicts: https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Specia ... pedoidiots 8-) :mrgreen:


Are you one of those Metapedia people?
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
wikipedoidiots
Sucks
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:13 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by wikipedoidiots » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:10 pm


User avatar
wikipedoidiots
Sucks
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:13 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by wikipedoidiots » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:12 pm


User avatar
wikipedoidiots
Sucks
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:13 pm

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by wikipedoidiots » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:13 pm

how many dirty wikipedoidiots killd themselves over bs edits like those internet gamers in korea just dropped down fromo exhaustion? :cry:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Wikipedians are crazy addicts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:39 pm

Steven Pruitt / Ser Amantio di Nicolao's Reddit AMA
I have my moments...I think everyone does. But then I look back on some of the articles I've written - especially on subjects that have had no online presence before - and it feels good. That wonderful feeling of having made something useful. That's what keeps me going, often as not.

Besides, I know it sounds cheesy, but I've come to believe that we, collectively, are changing the world and the way the world thinks about knowledge. That's an amazing thing to think about, and it still blows my mind.
It began back in 2004. I was an early adopter of Wikipedia...I was in college at the time, and it kept turning up in my search results on Google. And one day I decided to finally play around with it and see what would result.

.....

It allows me to scratch the academic itch without having to go for a Ph.D. Haven't looked back since.

I spend, on average, two to three hours a night on Wikipedia. Maybe more, on the weekends...but it varies. Otherwise I work, same as the next guy. Sing in a choir one night a week. Do grocery runs now and again...that sort of thing.
It's genuinely scary how they can't bring themselves to admit their motives are entirely selfish; instead they create this false narrative that they have somehow invented this new thing - alt-academia - and their efforts are somehow for the public good.

The sad thing is, there is an aspect of Wikipedia that comes close to properly scratching the academic itch - bringing an article to Featured status. It is still a huge approximation to real research, but if your aim is to do research, and you have countless hours to spend on a task, then this would be your natural focus, for the public good. I was reminded today, the number of Featured articles on Wikipedia stubbornly remains at "~0.1%". That miniscule figure is not a misprint.

This guy didn't do that. By his own admission, he began writing articles, but gradually gravitated to what is essentially pointless busy work. Also by his own admission, if he is doing any substantial research anymore, the way he does it is entirely random.

This is addiction, not research. Wikipedia should not be being written by frustrated academics, but actual academics. It has some, but they tend to be the ones who aren't very good, or are there for the wrong reasons, such as self-promotion.

If these people have changed the world's perception of knowledge, it is to markedly lower expectations, and weirdly make people conflate online knowledge with Wikipedia, like the whole entire rest of the web doesn't exist.

Post Reply