No Ledge reveals his masterplan for Wikipedia diversification - upside down slavery

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

No Ledge reveals his masterplan for Wikipedia diversification - upside down slavery

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:04 pm

You see some batshit stuff on Wikipediocracy, a byproduct of it being infested with Wikipedians no doubt, but even this took me by surprise.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 19#p288419

Here is No Ledge, a Wikipedia Administrator, outlining his plan to diversify the community.....
Yeah, I'm "uncomfortable" too about supporting the non-profit through my labor and would prefer a more explicit fee-for-service arrangement.

I'm not expecting them to pay me $100K, Just enough to keep my coffee cup filled would be a start.

My concerns aren't selfish. If they want "the community" to be more diverse – more than just financially independent white guys – they should start paying those who can't afford to "donate" their work. I'd be happy to help supervise them to ensure they're competent and aren't slacking off.
Isn't that just fucking weird?

A well off white dude just sits around all day, on his benevolent butt, drinking his free coffee, while making sure the work niggers do their jobs right.

As ever, a well off white male Wikipediot fails to appreciate how offensive to the rest of the world their entire world view is.

This slavery flipped model is his genius idea of how Wikipedia fulfils its "public service" mission going forward....
I keep doing it because people deserve to have good, quality information available to them as a public service.

Rather than misinformation from a "Mickey-Mouse" platform. I didn't pay that much attention to Wikipedia during its first decade. Because it was obviously just a bunch of amateur-produced content that nobody would take seriously.

But now people do take it seriously, which means it's potentially more dangerous. The site needs more people supervising it, not fewer.
The mind boggles.

Wikipedia is not a public service, it is a societal cancer. When the vast majority of its readers still don't even realise it's written by benelovent future upside down slave masters like No Ledge, you don't get to pretend "people take it seriously".

Wikipedia still is produced by amateurs, it still is a Mickey mouse platform. All that changed in the last ten years, is they got good at PR. They stopped talking about article quality, because they realized most of the dumb bastards reading the site didn't have the first clue how to even tell a good Wikipedia article from a bad one.

And those that could, well, Wikipedia soon removed their ability to rate the articles, because, unsurprisingly, the results made the Wikipediots sad. Turns out they don't like being told all day every day that their product is shit.

The ever stupid Jim is pushing back against No Ledge's public service angle, but not from a very intellectual level, just a mean spirited protecting his own fragile ego perspective, as is his way.....
I stopped editing wikipedia quite some time ago and here's what happened:

The stuff I thought only I cared about got updated regardless. Anything that didn't I was probably being too obsessive about anyway.

You can try to kid yourself that you're somehow irreplaceable, if you like - that without you it would all collapse - but at the end of the day you're an easily replaceable work-unit, and your replacement will be fee-free.
I dunno what Jim was working on, but as anyone who really knows Wikipedia, it really doesn't follow that just because multiple people want to update something, doesn't mean it is something worth caring about, for an encyclopedia anyway. On the flip side, I could probably give quite a few solid, concrete examples, where there really was only one Wikipediot updating a given topic or article, and yet it was manifestly an encyclopedic topic that is important in the real world.

Thus starkly illustrating the problem of Wikipedia - other than waste of time bullshit like popular culture, current events and the most popular aspects of pop history/science etc, Wikipedia's volunteer model has singularly failed to inspire enough people who actually want to edit encyclopedic topics, to be of any use to anyone.

Jim probably knew that after his first few months, assuming he was editing a worthwhile topic, but he probably stayed out of boredom or addiction or any of the other reasons those losers stick around, before they eventually realise they're wasting their lives.

Wikipedia is a manifestly selfish activity. No Ledge is kidding himself if he thinks he's remaining addicted because he's part of some public service effort.

Kudos to him finding a creative way to repackage white guilt as public service though. Not sure him cracking the whip over a bunch of brown folk will really rid him of it though, not simply by virtue of him reversing who gets paid.

Post Reply