The sheer insanity of Small Boner versus Elon

[ChaosMeRee]

You get so used to seeing retards be retards on Wikipedia It is all too easy to almost miss the stuff that goes a notch beyond retarded into full insanity.

I swear I almost moved right past this is as just same old same old.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 06/Opinion

The only way to interpret those tweets is that they are intentional insults to all Wikipedians.

Bollocks. A non-insane person would readily interpret them as the frustration of a man who thinks his Wikipedia biography is innacurate.

You are effectively calling me and all Wikipedia editors "dicks"

Lolwut? Does that mean you usually refer to yourselves as "wiki"s? What a pillock.

on a platform that you control where millions of people can view the insult within hours. Ten days later the tweets had been viewed 18.5 million times.

As opposed to the quiet village green that is Wikipedia?

Fuck off with this bullshit.

Edits made to Wikipedia are visible to Google almost instantly. And by curious coincidence, Elon Musk's Wikipedia page has been viewed a total of 18 million times. And as everyone knows, on Wikipedia, control is everything. Take User:HAL333. He is by a country mile the controlling mind on that page. He has made almost half of all edits to the page, and is responsible for over half the text added.

Who the fuck is he? Nobody knows. Those statistics alone should raise red flags on an alleged collaborative website aiming for neutrality through the wisdom of crowds, but as usual, it's fucking crickets at best, back slapping congratulations at worst.

And you start with a reminder of your wealth "I will give them a billion dollars", letting us know that you are a big shot.

Uh huh. And just so we're clear, you're sticking with the idea that Wikipedia is some small time mom and pop store?

Unfucking believable. Wikipedia is awash with cash. And the more you think about it, the more parallels emerge between how Elon made his money and Wikipedia obtained its dominance. My favourite is how they both managed to persuade people to pay upfront for a mere promise of a product marketed as the future. Well, I got me an electric car and even a ticket to space, but funnily enough, I'm still waiting for my accurate, comprehensive and neutral encyclopedia.

Most people don't like it when some rich person insults them and uses their money to justify the insult.

Most people won't have a fucking clue what you're even talking about tbh

A fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, known as "assume good faith" or AGF, instructs us to assume good faith on your part

It does nothing of the sort. It instructs you only in how to approach other editors. And even then it is merely a guideline (advice) not a policy (instruction). It sure as shit isn't a fundamental tenet (if you were thinking of the "five pillars"). Elon Musk is not a Wikipedia editor. So this statement is absolute bullshit.

And honestly, it just goes downhill from there, where Small Boner fleshes out this fantasy land where he imagines Elon's Tweets were actually the work of a notional Elon as a Wikipedia editor and he gets to tell Elon everything he has done wrong according to Wikipedia policy.

He takes it pretty far too.....

Consider this letter to be a warning.

Well OK. If we suspend reality and imagine you think you are actually talking to a Wikipedia editor, have you considered the absolute shit storm that would rain down on you if you ever dared to abuse the SignPost to use it as a means to issue a very public warning to a specific editor? It would be a spectacular violation of a number of Wikipedia rules. In the common tongue, an absolute dick move.

What an utter fruitcake.

And not just because somehow, without him even realising it, he proved that it really should be called Dickipedia.

Because it's run by dicks for dicks.

There is part of me that hopes Elon gets the wrong idea and assumes that because this lunatic was allowed to post this drivel in the SignPost he might actually think it has quasi-official status as a very public warning by someone with the actual authority to ban Elon from Wikipedia without Elon having ever edited Wikipedia, and he has an extremely bad reaction to it.

For all that Small Boner was trying to come across as a helpful person who was reaching out to Elon in a respectful way to explain Wikipedia to him, he neglected to include the vitally important information that he wasn't speaking for anyone but himself, Wikipedia offers no guarantees that he isn't talking complete bollocks, and even if he wasn't, he hasn't got the power to ban anyone, except perhaps his mom from entering his room. And you suspect he doesn't even have that.

One thing is certain however. Elon's lawyers surely know fine well that under Californian legal precedent, established at great cost to Wikipedia donors, including you would guess some of the money E!on has previously donated to Wikipedia, you can be banned from Wikipedia for "any reason", including "no reason at all". That always was a stupid thing to do. Giving a maverick billionaire with millions of obsessive fans a reason to show complete contempt for everything you stand for and in the process see themselves as being in the moral right, is a classic example.

Small Boner genuinely threatened to ban Elon from Wikipedia without him ever having made a single edit. In a way he at least hoped was a very public forum.

Man alive I am PISSED that Elon must surely have missed it.

[ericbarbour]

a) they're ASSUMING Musk is paying a PR firm to make his WP bio happy-smiley. He probably is, but Musk being Musk, there are an endless number of media reports of foot-mouth insertions and assorted bizarreness. Editwarring is built into such articles. The fundamental tension of rich-people BLPs, along with corporate articles and other "vanity material", determines the limits of Wikipedia's content control incompetence.

b) I'll never understand why Andreas Kolbe still participates in producing the Signpost. It is the PRAVDA of the Wiki Soviet Union--"truth" is not in their official remit. Propaganda is job 1.

It sure as shit isn't a fundamental tenet (if you were thinking of the "five pillars").

Suggestion: start calling them the "Five Pillocks". You're welcome.

Small Boner genuinely threatened to ban Elon from Wikipedia without him ever having made a single edit.

We need to abuse Ekman more often. He is truly one of their worst insiders--but few people outside that scene have ever heard of him. His rant is full of stinking lies, but this one is among the worst:

There is only one case that I know of where a person who hadn't been proved to have edited Wikipedia has been blocked. This is the case of the paid editing company Wiki-PR, which used hundreds of undeclared paid sockpuppets to insert bias and advertising into articles.

[ChaosMeRee]

b) I'll never understand why Andreas Kolbe still participates in producing the Signpost. It is the PRAVDA of the Wiki Soviet Union--"truth" is not in their official remit. Propaganda is job 1.

I imagine the fact he is allowed to be far more critical in The SignPost than on Wikipediocracy has something to do with it.

If Beeblebrox or Ritchie333 turn up at a SignPost article talking absolute bollocks in some pathetic attempt to just get Andreas to stop talking about something they dislike or tell others not to read him because he be crazy (but can't engage with them on the facts), more people notice, and it is evidence that can be submitted to ArbCom.

Put this together with the fact Wikipediocracy long ago stopped being about allowing people to say what cannot be said on Wikipedia, the media long ago stopped being interested in Wikipedia criticism at all (perhaps precisely because Wikipediocracy stopped being a reliable source of genuinely newsworthy stuff), and it looks to be a far more logical choice for someone seeking a wide and influential audience but is content with merely shifting the needle, not burning the house down.

Take Cullen's recent meltdown or Jess Wade's curious declining productivity. If Andreas posted about that on Wikipediocacy, what's stopping Ritchie or Beeblebrox or any of the scum reacting to it the way Die Hard Propagandists inevitably would?

Certainly not Jake. He will let Ritchie claim Cullen is the best Administrator Wikipedia has until the cows come home. He lets Ritchie say whatever he likes about Jess Wade's awesomeness, no proof expected or required. Scrutiny of that utter bullshit will not be tolerated by Jake. Posters minded to submit contradictory evidence in the interests of having a full and frank discussion about Wikipedia and why it sucks balls, will be banned (my good self being a case in point).

Ritchie is a valued member of Wikipediocracy. All that matters to them is that his feelings are not hurt by exposure to harsh truths about Wikipedia or indeed his own character. Same goes for Beeblebrox and all the other maggots now infesting that place.

Quite unnoticed to most, the SignPost has actually become a place where you can call out the more obvious bullshit of a Ritchie or a Beeblebrox, whose power in the cult of course doesn't come from them being honest and upstanding, but powerful and corruptible. They can try to shut you up, but they realise by now that doing so would probably result in an ArbCom case. They know what happens to Admins trying to silence people who merely try to post neutral stories there such that readers might draw the right conclusions (that Ritchie is an asshat).

Where are you more likely to see it being said that an Administrator who cannot even abide by Wikipedia's basic behavioural standards probably shouldn't be allowed to go forth and charge $75 an hour for advice on Wikipedia, certainly not in complete and total secrecy? Wikipediocracy or The SignPost?

Probably neither in truth. But I know which venue is more actively hostile to the prospect of such a thing even being seen as a matter for civil debate for the better understanding of Wikipedia.

[ericbarbour]

I imagine the fact he is allowed to be far more critical in The SignPost than on Wikipediocracy has something to do with it.

Sad to admit, you are basically correct. And it's understandable that Wee Billy Burns would want "his" forum to be a Wikipedia "safe space" free of horrors like you and me. But I'm still waiting to know what the HELL is motivating Jake like this. Much less why Tarantino, one of Wikipedia's oldest critics, is now coddling insiders like little fat spoiled babies. It is disgusting to watch.