View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:47 pm




Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Questions to Mr. Nest 
Author Message
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3389
Reply with quote
In the first place, I am not the Quixote's squire of Crow like Randy and WRC seems to suggest now, but the organizer of this tournament, what was the idea of WRC.
And I have explane what my point was, I am in this roll neutral and want to stay neutral!

But I found this question to Crow and I think it is a good idea to collect this kind of questions about the battle here from other fora. And as long everybody keeps me out of there wikishit I will put them here without any common from my side and Crow is free to answer them if he wants and when he wants.

So, if you have any question about this debat, post it on WO or WR or where you want, and if I find it I place it here as a Quote.

Quote:
Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Renée Bagslint wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:54 am
I think we can pretty much say that Wikipedia criticism is at a low ebb. The WO crowd seem to have replaced nearly all the old guard with a crowd of what I'll call "tweakers" -- people who believe that WP can be fixed (whatever that means) with a few minor changes. WS seems to be a private blog of CrowsNest, who rants about pretty well everyone and everything, but has no actual plans to do anything in the real world to change the things he dislikes so much..

Proabivouac wrote: Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:16 am
Yes and yes.

Probably the most bizarre thing I can recall seeing from Mr. Nest was his contention that Wikipedia is "homophobic." Compared to what, one wonders?

http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 4457#p4457

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:13 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
Andrew isn't saying anything new regarding his view of my efforts. We've been around that block many times, there will be a thread on here somewhere that gives my position, it gets boring having to repeat it. He certainly does not tire of repeating himself though.

There is nothing stopping any other serious critics coming here and making this place less of a parade of my thoughts, not from me anyway. For those who seem to have issues with the staff here, all I can say is my initial reservations proved unfounded. Their commitment to providing a serious alternative to what Wikipediocracy has become, seems as real as anything can be in the land of the internet. I don't know any of them personally, and don't expect I ever will.

I don't know what Proabivouac's problem with me is, I keep meaning to investigste, but there's always something more important to be getting on with. I'd be happy to answer any questions he wants to put to me through emissaries, but I remain unconvinced that an account on Wikipedia Review 4? is something I need to be able to do what I want to do.

As far as I know, I have not done anything to piss TDA or Auggie off, I am quite sure if they posted here we could achieve more things toward our common goals than the current situation.

If criticism is at a low ebb, and there's no reason to think so given ongoing topical criticism is easy to find in assorted places not called Wikipedicorwcy (Poetlister's sad little newsfeed doesn't count, even the zombie Wikipedia Review 2? has one of those), then the reason is the same as it has been for a few years now - more serious critics are banned from or otherwise choose not to post on Wikipediocracy, than who actually post on it, and Jake chooses to mask this failure by protecting a bunch of pseudo-critics and even die-hard Wikipedians as a sign of some sort of activity, all of whom have absolutely no intention of seriously criticising Wikipedia, and indeed some of whom use it to push the Wikipedia cult's mythologies and fight its critics, or even their internal opponents.


Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:08 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 372
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
If criticism is at a low ebb, and there's no reason to think so given ongoing topical criticism is easy to find in assorted places not called Wikipedicorwcy (Poetlister's sad little newsfeed doesn't count, even the zombie Wikipedia Review 2? has one of those), then the reason is the same as it has been for a few years now - more serious critics are banned from or otherwise choose not to post on Wikipediocracy, than who actually post on it, and Jake chooses to mask this failure by protecting a bunch of pseudo-critics and even die-hard Wikipedians as a sign of some sort of activity, all of whom have absolutely no intention of seriously criticising Wikipedia, and indeed some of whom use it to push the Wikipedia cult's mythologies and fight its critics, or even their internal opponents.


Indeed criticism is not at a low ebb here, and the IRC Wikipedians have banned saying my name in the channel because they keep accidentally mentioning me. :roll:

However I have been thinking hard about presentation, crucially how the criticism should be presented to the world at large.

The Donna Strickland incident was interesting because mainstream news reported on Wikipedia for once, so I have been looking into how information about Wikipedia's less good aspects could be made more available to journalists so they can stick bits into their reports when reporting on Wikipedia.

These forums are very opaque, and to be honest even the blog format is not exactly a perfect presentation. I believe that some improvements could be made there.

For context, about a thousand people read my blog when I post, this is more or less the size of what I would describe as the "wikipedia insiders" crowd, i.e editors, and a few former editors. Obviously not all insiders read what I write, so maybe there's 2 or 3 thousand overall "Wikipedians".

The aim of getting these people to read something is easy enough, the aim of getting people not in that bubble to pay attention is difficult, to perhaps give the people donating to Wikipedia pause perhaps.

Writing click-bait is one option I thought of after that Congress thing became slightly mainstream and got into news aggregators. But that is hardly a good option or likely to get people interested.

I haven't found any good solution yet, and I have been having fun saving Poetlisters pet Wikisource anyway, taking a break to see what the latest version of MediaWiki has in it, and how much extra binder twine and sticky tape the devs have added to get it to stay together. :?

It's quite a lot, one day it will just break and the WMF might have to pay some web developers for once. :/

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:43 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
You definitely should not assume your readers are just the insiders. The major problem as I see it, is you've stopped writing it altogether......


Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:04 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1554
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
I don't know what Proabivouac's problem with me is

Proab lol.....just ignore him!

Quote:
As far as I know, I have not done anything to piss TDA or Auggie off, I am quite sure if they posted here we could achieve more things toward our common goals than the current situation.

They're bored and they both realize their attempts to "hijack Wikipedia criticism" failed, so they're taking potshots at anyone left who isn't Deeply In Love With Wiki (Kumioko, Tim, Poetguy etc). None of this really means anything at the end of the day, sorry to report.


Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:14 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4125
Reply with quote
I can only repeat my bafflement that PB has such a dim view of me.

His post here is literally word for word what I have been saying for years....

http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php? ... =410#p4767

And unlike Kumioko's recent attempts to repackage my thoughts as his own on another platform so he can appear smarter than he is, I can assure PB all my thoughts are my own, the apparent confluence is a case of convergent evolution.


Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:41 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Graaf Statler and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.