Wikipedia Sucks!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Edit ... Mitigation

It has been debated at length before. The "There-Is-No-Cabal Cabal" jackoffs wanted to block all IP editing so as to make their miserable little political shitgames easier; but there were far more people who knew it would strangle off content editing. So it was kept open. (Apart from blocking TOR nodes and certain VPNs that they didn't like, which was done VERY quietly.)

Now that the WMF is a massive and still dysfunctional bureaucracy, and WP is run by vandalism patrollers, I expect they will start denying IP editing soon. And then we will see WP participation REALLY plummet.

The talkpage for that item is hilarious--the usual voluminous sniping and petty bitching. Only been open since July 31 and it's already 239k bytes long. Patrollers are screaming BANBANBAN and others are saying "bad idea".

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =19&t=1311

Last I saw they were proposing a Foundation run trial (because a self-governing autonomous community of course cannot do a basic thing like turn unregistered editing off), as they did with ACPERM. And as with that trial, the results will be interpreted as a success, because the people interpreting it want it to be a success. Even now, they are ignoring the fact that the resulting overload of AfC, with all the attendant issues that causes, was entirely predicted by the trial.

A properly designed trial of banning unregistered editting would expose what any serious Wikipedia editor just knows through direct observation - IP editors clean up far more than they break, in part because they outnumber the establishment by a ridiculous factor, and the vast majority of established editors began as IP editors.

The people who what to ban unregistered editing live in a fantasy world where registration is not a huge barrier, and Wikipedia's existing reporting systems are not already completely unfit for purpose.

Still, they're Wikipedians, living in fantasy worlds is there specialism. Not forgetting most of them only want the ban for purely selfish reasons, pulling up the drawbridge so they can protect their walled gardens, and so will tell any old lie in a community 'consultation' to achieve it.

CrowsNest wrote:Last I saw they were proposing a Foundation run trial (because a self-governing autonomous community of course cannot do a basic thing like turn unregistered editing off), as they did with ACPERM. And as with that trial, the results will be interpreted as a success, because the people interpreting it want it to be a success. Even now, they are ignoring the fact that the resulting overload of AfC, with all the attendant issues that causes, was entirely predicted by the trial.

Pointless to even discuss it. If all IP edits were blocked, something like 20-30% of WP edits in general would stop. Recent changes are still slowly and fitfully declining--this would be a cliff, and then there would be NAKED PANIC. And finger-pointing.

IP editors clean up far more than they break, in part because they outnumber the establishment by a ridiculous factor, and the vast majority of established editors began as IP editors.

The people who what to ban unregistered editing live in a fantasy world where registration is not a huge barrier, and Wikipedia's existing reporting systems are not already completely unfit for purpose.

You have just described the average vandalism patroller and deletionist. They run the fucking place now, and badly, so all of this is a moot point. Idiots with a "Sacred Public Trust" are still idiots.

The whole idea is painfully dumb for all the reasons already stated, but it also breaks the Wikipedia tag line of "the encyclopedia anybody can edit" - if I can't IP edit their broken article on former La Mesa mayor Art Madrid (which still will not say that he lost his re-election bid in 2014), even though I know their vandalism 'bots or those two IP addresses in La Mesa and El Cajon will revert any change because Art is "California's eternal mayor" for some stupid private reason....even though the real mayor, Mark Arapostrathis, is listed in the La Mesa article, then what is the freaking point of letting outsiders edit?

This has been obvious for years: the problem is not anonymous editing, per se, the problem is that they rejected flagged revisions. Anyone (even banned users!) should be able to propose edits, presumably providing sources, etc. You do this through a hierarchy, that is, there are editors allowed to approve these proposed revisions. But wait, hierarchy is structure, which is BUREAUCRACY!!! Kill it, quick, before it multiplies!!!

The real problem is anonymous administration. But that's the cabal! When nobody is responsible, someone will be, but secretly and without transparency and responsibility.

They should have kept it as open as possible. When Flagged Revisions was proposed, that was the time to radically rethink the model. If it was to be the case that logged in users could see a different version than readers, they could have simply used a time based approval process. After a set period, any edit goes live. Maybe even set it proportional to views. If they can't detect all the things a Reviewer is meant to in that set time in 100% of cases, then Wikipedia clearly doesn't work.

CrowsNest wrote:They should have kept it as open as possible. When Flagged Revisions was proposed, that was the time to radically rethink the model. If it was to be the case that logged in users could see a different version than readers, they could have simply used a time based approval process. After a set period, any edit goes live. Maybe even set it proportional to views. If they can't detect all the things a Reviewer is meant to in that set time in 100% of cases, then Wikipedia clearly doesn't work.

Nope. No edit should be allowed to go live if not independently reviewed. Actually "article reviewers" should not be allowed to review and approve their own edits. This is basic functional process. Yes, the model needed rethinking. Understatement.

(Except perhaps for editorials, explicitly personal opinion, editors at peer-reviewed journals may not review their own articles. Even there some independent review is highly desirable.)

(Anyone should be able to see all edits unless deleted because illegal or seriously disruptive. For all readers, what would be presented by default would be the approved version, but anyone could see the proposed revisions. My opinion, reviewers should be specialized, working on topics where they are knowledgeable, and that work would itself be reviewed as needed.)

Abd wrote:

CrowsNest wrote:They should have kept it as open as possible. When Flagged Revisions was proposed, that was the time to radically rethink the model. If it was to be the case that logged in users could see a different version than readers, they could have simply used a time based approval process. After a set period, any edit goes live. Maybe even set it proportional to views. If they can't detect all the things a Reviewer is meant to in that set time in 100% of cases, then Wikipedia clearly doesn't work.

Nope. No edit should be allowed to go live if not independently reviewed. Actually "article reviewers" should not be allowed to review and approve their own edits. This is basic functional process. Yes, the model needed rethinking. Understatement.

(Except perhaps for editorials, explicitly personal opinion, editors at peer-reviewed journals may not review their own articles. Even there some independent review is highly desirable.)

(Anyone should be able to see all edits unless deleted because illegal or seriously disruptive. For all readers, what would be presented by default would be the approved version, but anyone could see the proposed revisions. My opinion, reviewers should be specialized, working on topics where they are knowledgeable, and that work would itself be reviewed as needed.)

Sure. And all the pensioned professors will not spend there time on there grandchildren and holidays but work day and night to review all those edits done by a bunch of autistic computer guys who have nothing better to do with there life because they are unemployed. The luxury cars of the free loaders of the chapter members will all replaced by Tesla's because of the ecological goals of the wiki movement and to compensate the carbon food print of all the useless air trips. And all schemes as presented on wikimania are executed and gender neutrality will in 2030 realised because een beetje vent transgenderd.

Keep on dreaming from a world wide mouvement with waving pirate flags on every corner of the European capitols and even on the top of the Eiffel Tower, Abd. With as leading party in 2030 The Pirate Party and in 2035 Romaine=Wikimedia will even became the president of the European Parlement.
And the Star Chambers system will have in that time replaced all European courts. Keep on dreaming Adb. Keep believing in this money wasting bullshit, go ahead!

Go ahead, it is not my money or our tax money. It is even a blessing for us European tax payers because this system safe the European social benefit funds so much money! We are so thankful for this financial aid from America! Every lunatic a job and a new car what is also great news for the European car industry and the European economic in general!

Wikipedia is a win-win situation for Europe, Abd.

Graaf Statler wrote:

Abd wrote:

CrowsNest wrote:Sure. And all the pensioned professors will not spend there time on there grandchildren and holidays but work day and night to review all those edits done by a bunch of autistic computer guys who have nothing better to do with there life because they are unemployed.onomic in general!
.

Graaf, you have completely missed that there are two parts to creating an encyclopedia, writing and editing. And there are several kinds of editing. I was a professional copy editor. Ordinary copy editing can readily be done by anons, you make it easy for them, and it is quick to review, and so that can be done by a class of trusted anons. Then there is expert review, which is done by experts in peer-reviewed journals, and often they are volunteers, and then there is editorial management, which is sometimes volunteer but in major journals, is professional and paid. Editorial management resolves disputes that might arise in the general structure. Editorial management must be responsible, and therefore probably must be paid, and not anonymous.

In a real encyclopedia project, experts would work for two reasons: payment and prestige; and overall management would balance all that with available funding, etc.

Those "autistic computer guys" could create content, all right, but the experts would not even see it until it has gone through basic review. Wikipedia rejected centuries of experience, believing that they could wave the magic wiki wand and the encyclopedia would spontaneously create itself, as long as we block those POV-pushers.

And Graaf, you have no vision of what a structured project to realize the goals of Wikipedia might look lilke, so you cob together a piece of it with a bunch of radically dysfunctional actuality, as if the latter were written in stone.Yes. depending on expert review would not work, given the project as-it-is. Indeed, this was a problem that I realized, working on Wikiversity and Wikibooks, and many have written about this. Why should an expert write an educational resource for WV, or a book for Wikibooks, when they can do it professionally and obtain funding or prestige (which can create funding)? WV was really for students, "leaning by doing." There were a few professors who used WV for student projects, and, of course, they were paid by their institutions.

But an amateur, studying parapsychology, creating an annotated bibliography, putting in years of work, asked for public support on GoFundMe and got maybe $500, peanuts for how much work he had put in, as much as thousands of hours. And was then, as part of the attack on me and on Wikiversity, blocked for . . . asking for money elsewhere. It was not a violation of any policy, but at that point the attackers did not care at all about policy or education. They cared about harm, defamation, and deletion.

CrowsNest wrote:https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1311

Last I saw they were proposing a Foundation run trial (because a self-governing autonomous community of course cannot do a basic thing like turn unregistered editing off), as they did with ACPERM. And as with that trial, the results will be interpreted as a success, because the people interpreting it want it to be a success. Even now, they are ignoring the fact that the resulting overload of AfC, with all the attendant issues that causes, was entirely predicted by the trial.

A properly designed trial of banning unregistered editting would expose what any serious Wikipedia editor just knows through direct observation - IP editors clean up far more than they break, in part because they outnumber the establishment by a ridiculous factor, and the vast majority of established editors began as IP editors.

The people who what to ban unregistered editing live in a fantasy world where registration is not a huge barrier, and Wikipedia's existing reporting systems are not already completely unfit for purpose.

Still, they're Wikipedians, living in fantasy worlds is there specialism. Not forgetting most of them only want the ban for purely selfish reasons, pulling up the drawbridge so they can protect their walled gardens, and so will tell any old lie in a community 'consultation' to achieve it.

I was Orwell might have said given a little while on Wikipedia: knowledge is power, but on Wikipedia knowledge is not knowledge... war is peace, etc.