Suggestion: Our own Wiki.

[CMAwatch]

@Abd As soon as it finished, please host Handroid7's important report of Bbb23's evidently abusive behaviour.

Source code here.

Source code also attached as ZIP file (just in case).


I feel so sorry for Handroid7, Aron Manning and all those other innocent victims of Bbb23.

Imagine doing prolific edits on Wikipedia, just to find ones account banned by some guy called “Bbb23”.

The ban of Handroid7 was anti-innovative. If Handroid7 creates good content, no reader of Wikipedia gives a damn that his account was created by a formerly indefinitely blocked user.

Blocking users who already learnt from their mistake a long time ago is pointless.

Deleting their good pages is even harmful!

Also, guess what his previous account got banned for. A few anti-circumcision edits. That's all.

Nothing compared to Bbb23's massacre.

And if Handroid7 tries to defend himself against Bbb23's gaslighting practices, he gets called out for “Attack Page”?!

[CMAwatch]

There should also be an article called “Victims of Bbb23”.

Or maybe with sub pages (e.g. wikitop.cc/wiki/Victims_of_Bbb23/Aron_Manning and wikitop.cc/wiki/Victims_of_Bbb23/Handroid7 .


Bbb23's gaslighting needs to be exposed.

[Stanistani]

FWIW Wikipediocracy had its own wiki. Not open to the public. I even wrote custom content for it derived from the book notes. Wee Billy Burns pulled it down one day in July 2015, and I still have no idea exactly why (apart from his complaint that MediaWiki installations are frequent targets of hackers and spammers, admittedly a common complaint about that "wonderful" open-source package).

If you wanna start your own, be my guest. I could even feed you some content later--don't have time to contribute directly tho.

Actually, I didn't pull it down. It just stopped working one day. The content, so far as I know, was intact. Wonderful software, that. I've tried to find a MediaWiki expert who wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian to fix it, without success.

Can you suggest a suitable candidate?

[Kumioko]

FWIW Wikipediocracy had its own wiki. Not open to the public. I even wrote custom content for it derived from the book notes. Wee Billy Burns pulled it down one day in July 2015, and I still have no idea exactly why (apart from his complaint that MediaWiki installations are frequent targets of hackers and spammers, admittedly a common complaint about that "wonderful" open-source package).

If you wanna start your own, be my guest. I could even feed you some content later--don't have time to contribute directly tho.

Actually, I didn't pull it down. It just stopped working one day. The content, so far as I know, was intact. Wonderful software, that. I've tried to find a MediaWiki expert who wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian to fix it, without success.

Can you suggest a suitable candidate?

Help fix a Wiki that no one has access too except maybe half a dozen mods? What for? I can't imagine why you can't find anyone who's interested.

You might as well just ask one of the couple dozen admins and arbs you have loitering around the forum. There are more Wikipedia sympethizers and enablers than critics.

[Carrite]

FWIW Wikipediocracy had its own wiki. Not open to the public. I even wrote custom content for it derived from the book notes. Wee Billy Burns pulled it down one day in July 2015, and I still have no idea exactly why (apart from his complaint that MediaWiki installations are frequent targets of hackers and spammers, admittedly a common complaint about that "wonderful" open-source package).

If you wanna start your own, be my guest. I could even feed you some content later--don't have time to contribute directly tho.

Actually, I didn't pull it down. It just stopped working one day. The content, so far as I know, was intact. Wonderful software, that. I've tried to find a MediaWiki expert who wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian to fix it, without success.

Can you suggest a suitable candidate?

Help fix a Wiki that no one has access too except maybe half a dozen mods? What for? I can't imagine why you can't find anyone who's interested.

You might as well just ask one of the couple dozen admins and arbs you have loitering around the forum. There are more Wikipedia sympethizers and enablers than critics.

Not sure myself why "Not A Wikipedian" is part of the job description to fix a Wiki. After all, Zoloft/Stanistani himself is a Wikipedian. He's voted at the last two RFAs, after all, and made thoughtful votes at both.

RfB

[Kumioko]

Honestly that's part of the problem. Zoloft is so busy towing the party line and handing out the Koolaid he can't really be a critic.

[CrowsNest]

Honestly that's part of the problem. Zoloft is so busy towing the party line and handing out the Koolaid he can't really be a critic.

No different to the way you like to pretend Wikipedia can be fixed, if only blah blah blah.

You're both hopeless believers in a reform that will never come, because Wikipedia is broken/evil/anti-information by design.

[Abd]

A MediaWiki installation.

Whatever the wikipedia critical community (which includes supporters, "criticism" is not a negative term) chooses to use it for. It will not be a place to attack each other, but straight documentation, neutral, will be allowed, within limits. I'm owner, and thus will be responsible trustee. If anyone else starts a similar project, we will link to it.

Fair enough. Just be aware that people love to hack into and ruin MediaWiki installs. It is really not very "secure". Some hands-on management every day will be a necessity.

Also, keep backups regularly.
But great work, Abd!

Well, not done yet. Okay, this week, I'm committing. That's what get stuff done. No fucking excuses.

Yeah, security and backups. If it's all me, stuff is likely to fall through the cracks. But I suspect we will have some competent people, or peeps, as they may say.