Wikipedia Critics: an Intellectual Analysis

[sashi]

Whatever happened to FlipFlopped, anyway? Have they been rebranded? Surely FlipFlopped isn't just anyone in disguise.

[CrowsNest]

Whatever happened to FlipFlopped, anyway? Have they been rebranded? Surely FlipFlopped isn't just anyone in disguise.

Oh Lord no. Totally different people. More likely to be Juice than anybody, but I doubt it. Strel said FF was subject to harassment from WP. Although of course you can still see posts by Kumioko running around this place claiming he was one of the people I chased away, using that post by Strel to add truth to the lie. Once he had realized he hadn't even put words in the mouth of the right Admin. Juice stepped in, obtaining a half-apology and a half-retraction, only for getting the wrong person, not totally misquoting them. He either didn't notice or didn't care he had been played yet again, and put me under an WS:IBAN for being annoyed at his continuing idiocy and for further pounding on Kumioko for being a game playing little bitch. Get used to that sort of nonsense, it's the new normal around here. Gonna be a bad place to be for casual visitors who occasionally comment. Or a good place, if they're not here for facts.

Vive la Wikipediocracy Deux!

(you can also expect Juice to enquire if you are offended by my cultural misappropriation there, because he has no idea who is who and what is what, but is trying desperately to earn more brownie points from his even stupider masters)

[Anyone]

I see one of our Junior Critics is a tad disgruntled. Never mind. Let's not worry about the minnows and focus instead on the big boys.

Senior Critics

Daniel Brandt
A blast from the past! Daniel Brandt's involvement with Wikipedia criticism goes back years. His exposé of Essjay on the original Wikipedia Review forum generated an ugly controversy that resulted in widespread ridicule for Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia and The New Yorker. Mr Brandt operated the now defunct wikipedia-watch.org and google-watch.org sites; he has been mentioned numerous times in leading publications and is famed for outing SlimVirign.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/wikipedia-critic-finds-copied-passages-20061104-gdor92.html
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/31/know-it-all
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/065484.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/in-search-of-the-wikipedia-prankster/

CONS
A prolific contributor to the first WR site and [perhaps unknowingly] one of the founding members of the HTD movement.

PROS
None that I can think of.

RATING
8/10

Peter Damian
Another blast from the past. Peter was of course Eric Barbour's partner in crime for the book that sadly never got published. His experience dates back to the early years of Wikipedia and the original Wikipedia Review forum; he appears to have been semi-active as a critic until at least early 2017. He mentioned me on his talk page, for example, in March 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian#Sympathy

CONS
Many Wikipedians viewed Mr Damian as a troll and unwelcome influence.

PROS
From what I've read, the gentleman is a respected [and published] intellectual and tenured professor.

RATING
7.5/10

[JuiceBeetle]

I hope you don't mind, that I clean up this topic. Off-topic discussions moved to Crow's and Graaf's topic.

[Anyone]

I hope you don't mind, that I clean up this topic. Off-topic discussions moved to Crow's and Graaf's topic.

Yep, no worries. I'll continue this and that Demon Butcher thread over the weekend.

[Anyone]

A few more.

Mid-level Critics

Casliber
A former member of Arbcom and prolific content creator with dozens of FAs to his credit, Casliber is a psychiatrist based in a small town not far from Sydney. I used to share emails and Facebook messages with Casliber, and once upon a time congratulated him on his "beautiful family". The gentleman has indeed done well for himself.

CONS
Casliber's criticism over on WPO is thoughtful and well regarded, but invariably lacks punch.

PROS
A hugely experienced Wikipedian with first-hand knowledge of Wikipedia's Star Chamber.

RATING
5/10

Beeblebox
Another former member of Wikipedia's Star Chamber, Beeblebrox is a regular these days on Wikipediocracy and contributes eagerly to a wide range of threads. His commentary tends to focus on bureaucratic issues and, to be frank, is generally rather tedious. I tend to skip his comments or speed read them at best.

CONS
Beeblebrox is not the world's most interesting person. He's actually rather dull.

PROS
The gentleman is obviously not a content creator, but is nonetheless an extremely experienced Wikipedian.

RATING
4.5/10


Junior Critics

Ming
Ming is essentially a waste of space. His Wikipedia identity was revealed on Auggie's wiki-rev forum [by either TDA or Renee Bagslint], but I no longer remember it. What I do recall, though, is that Ming spends his time on Wikipedia writing articles about lighthouses. Perhaps he lives near the sea!

CONS
I'm sure Ming means well, but unfortunately he never seems to add anything of value.

PROS
The gentleman is faultlessly polite. No PAs from Mr Ming.

RATING
3/10

[Murubima]

Although, as far as I'm aware anyway, he doesn't participate in any forum sites and I appreciate this is your ranking of critics, have you considered Iridescent? Frequently there are thought-provoking debates on his talk page during which he often offers interesting critical viewpoints.

[JuiceBeetle]

I like Iridescent's honest talk page header, but sadly that also applies to hir.

[Murubima]

I like Iridescent's honest talk page header

He uses a selection of images/captions for it; generally appropriate and very good.

[Anyone]

Although, as far as I'm aware anyway, he doesn't participate in any forum sites and I appreciate this is your ranking of critics, have you considered Iridescent? Frequently there are thought-provoking debates on his talk page during which he often offers interesting critical viewpoints.

Right, I'm aware of Iridescent. He's a regular at FAC [where I spent many of my Wiki moments] and has authored a fair bit of featured content.

As I see things, he could be described more as a critic of the WMF than Wikipedia, though I'm not even sure that's the case. To be honest, I view him as an autistic and obsessive nerd.

What is it, then, that makes you think he's some sort of critic?

Regardless, if you want him added to this list, we'll do it.