Top ten reasons Napster failed.

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

Top ten reasons Napster failed.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:48 pm

Reddit is the nuts.

Look at the amazing stuff you can find there!
Speaker Of Truths wrote:The point being, you get no cool points for identifying a situation you are a willing instigator of. He had a problem with me on Sucks, some sort of personality or character defect prevented him from coming to me with it the way a sensible and respectful board Admin would, and so instead he made that clown Smiley a Mod, and sat back and laughed as Smiley did what he is known for doing on forums. It had no effect on me because I am pretty much flame resistant, but once Smiley realised he couldn't drag me down to his level and was looking quite the fool, being unable to humiliate me even with the tools advantage, he pretty much set the forum on fire instead. And so now Eric is trying to come to terms with being the fire investigator who recruited an arsonist to deal with the small amount of smoke in the office bin that resulted from his own negligent practice of smoking in the office. And now he's all bitter because as it turns out, and as he surely knew all the time, Crow's can roost wherever they like and shit on whoever they want. It's just what they are. And when it comes to people needing no excuse to issue childish insults about Jimmy, and in threads which have absolutely nothing to do with Jimmy, for nothing more than a cheap thrill, Eric is the master. I kept my mouth shut about this and many of his other really embarrassing qualities since I did rather like the corner office I had at Sucks, but nor did I join in with the preferred office banter of the boss like the insecure children of Wikipediocracy do. But that's just me, a decent hard working critic who has never given anyone any reason to believe he's in this line of work for the wrong reasons or for the short haul. Eric may yet be the reason I call it quits, and if it is, I'll not be marking that sad victory for the Wikipedians/WMF with childish name calling and short term gratification, I'll be trying my hardest to honour the fine American traditions of how you settle your grievances with the PHB. I never claimed to anyone I was looking to approach Wikipedia criticism as academic or a journalist, even though I have the means and skills and knowledge to do so. But if that's what the Eric's, Jake's and Gender Lady's of this world wanted of me, if they're now regretting getting on my bad side, they should have dealt with me the way a Dean or an Editor In Chief does. Having to be nice to the lab rats, having to put up with them biting you when you're counting their diseases, having to share lab space with Section 8's, Nigerian scammers, child molesters, conspiracy theorists and special needs kids, and being talked down to and taken for granted by your boss, is not what professionals have to put up with. It is said they do the latter at the Mail, but clearly some professionals, the sharp eyed ruthless ambitious kind, will trade a little personal discomfort for being part of an award winning market leading highly influential newsroom. Eric isn't offering anyone that. Not even close. Eric was arguably the worst offender in the competition of who can run the worst outfit. He admitted himself, running shit wasn't his bag, but we see now why he kept hold of his master keys. Self interest. Even Jimmy looks good in comparison, having been brave enough to hand over what he arguably never needed to or should have. Eric's got the exit interview from Hell waiting for him, that arrogant, ignorant, useless bastard. Nobody buys a book from a man who makes the sort of basic screw-ups he does and yet seems to think he's a fucking genius. Nobody respects a man who loses an entire filing cabinet of good investigatory material in a fire of his own making, and then tries to blame the man who filled it for its loss. I don't have insurance policies or backup copies, I'm more of an old school kind of guy. You lose it through your own negligence, and you owe me a body part at the very least. This is no game for me, but it is merely a hobby not a job. Eric is the last person you would have expected not to be wise to the implications of that for his own interests given his self penned book jacket. But read a few pages, read his increasingly out of date and ill informed forum posts, and you soon realise why he can't seem to do the right thing in a crisis situation where his credentials and character are really being tested. He's a walking talking dementia case, bitter, twisted, angry, confused, cringeworthy, but most of all forgetful and unfocused, and thus quite useless. If he was ever a war hero, a Barnes Wallis, and that might just be his brain playing a cruel trick on him, he's most definitely been fighting the last war, probably the one before that, for a while now. And since he's not my pop pop, as much as I swear I think he thought he was at times, I feel not one bit of guilt or remorse for leaving him in his urine soaked bed in the care of a psychotic nurse. If me fighting said nurse pulls at his catheter, making his sunset years miserable, then fuck him. He's a Yank, so he should know the cost of not having ensured you had properly funded your health care needs. HTD.
Last edited by Jake Is A Sellout on Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:23 pm

You can run your items down first.

Then I will run mine down, which will dispense with any subtlety or complexity and nail it down to one dysfunctional personality.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:40 pm

.
Last edited by Jake Is A Sellout on Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:59 pm

okay, but I have to point out one thing: the deletionists won more than 10 years ago. And successfully covered it up.

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by Daniel Brandt » Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:07 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:59 pm
okay, but I have to point out one thing: the deletionists won more than 10 years ago. And successfully covered it up.
I don't know if "deletionists" is the right word. Do you mean "anti-deletionists"? Or maybe just "asshole editors."

SlimVirgin started a nasty stub on me in 2005 and wouldn't let up. Jimbo protected her. SlimVirgin was not dim-witted like Jimbo, but was capable and evil, and it took years and 14 AfDs (Article for Deletion votes) before SlimVirgin let go of that malicious bio. I asked her to delete the stub within a month after she started the bio but she replied, "We don't do that."

Actually, after all those years the bio improved despite SlimVIrgin. But I'm still delighted that the bio is finally gone.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:10 am

Daniel Brandt wrote:
Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:07 pm
I don't know if "deletionists" is the right word. Do you mean "anti-deletionists"? Or maybe just "asshole editors."
There's a difference?
SlimVirgin started a nasty stub on me in 2005 and wouldn't let up. Jimbo protected her. SlimVirgin was not dim-witted like Jimbo, but was capable and evil, and it took years and 14 AfDs (Article for Deletion votes) before SlimVirgin let go of that malicious bio. I asked her to delete the stub within a month after she started the bio but she replied, "We don't do that."
Actually, after all those years the bio improved despite SlimVIrgin. But I'm still delighted that the bio is finally gone.
don't give up, keep checking to make sure one of the insiders doesn't recreate it. Slim is gone and Jimbo is an "editor emeritus" meaning he no longer has any real political control. But there are still thousands of mad-dog types on WP. Undoubtedly, a few of them were involved in the fight over your bio, and would restore it if given a chance (and if they enjoy the protection of at least one or two admins). Nothing those little bastards do would surprise me anymore.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:12 am

and btw here's my top-ten reasons.

1) jimbo Wales
2) jimbo Wales
3) jimbo Wales
4) jimbo Wales
5) jimbo Wales
6) jimbo Wales
7) jimbo Wales
8) jimbo Wales
9) jimbo Wales
10) assholes installed by Jimbo Wales

User avatar
Strelnikov
Sucks Admin
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:25 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by Strelnikov » Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:07 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:12 am
and btw here's my top-ten reasons.

1) jimbo Wales
2) jimbo Wales
3) jimbo Wales
4) jimbo Wales
5) jimbo Wales
6) jimbo Wales
7) jimbo Wales
8) jimbo Wales
9) jimbo Wales
10) assholes installed by Jimbo Wales
I think it's more complicated than Jimbo and his cadre of dinks.....the Internet went from being handmade (the websites, not the equipment) to social media around the time Wikipedia began imploding. We've had a massive rise and fall in blogging, the coming of streaming video and Twitter (which is just limited text messaging online), the collapse of the chatroom (remember all the fears of creepos hanging around AOL chatrooms?), etc. Wikipedia became a fad, and now that the culture of the site has hardened into 'bots gnoming and idiot Wikilawyering. I could probably edit the site if I came up with a handle that could not be traced back to me, the Global Ban be damned (I never edited the site in the first place.) David "Dime Store Nosferatu" Gerard did so much damage with all the Scientology article in-fighting, it was like how James Randi "trained" skeptics in how to act toward Astrologers, UFO researchers, parapsychologists, etc., which was to treat all of them like they had Downs Syndrome and be abusive towards them. Without "Assisted Living Dracula" Gerard opening the door there would be no Guerilla Skeptics, no BS over Sheldrake, and thus no Rome Viharo Incident. It's all chained together, like Jacob Marley's sins. The Internet wanted to run away from TV and became TV once video could be streamed, because smartphones (and the push has been to create a mobile-friendly Internet) are miserable as computers unless you have a keyboard to plug into them. We are in an online cul-de-sac.
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.

User avatar
Daniel Brandt
Sucks
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 11:14 pm
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by Daniel Brandt » Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:30 pm

Strelnikov wrote:
Tue Dec 21, 2021 7:07 pm
The Internet wanted to run away from TV and became TV once video could be streamed, because smartphones (and the push has been to create a mobile-friendly Internet) are miserable as computers unless you have a keyboard to plug into them. We are in an online cul-de-sac.
This is a keen observation, but somewhat incomplete. It's not just tiny keyboards, but also tiny screens. You've all seen newsreel clips of Wall Street traders sitting in front of Bloomberg terminals. Each trader has two rows of large terminals, and each terminal is monitoring a different slice of information. They have to do this to react intelligently to Wall Street's ups and downs.

Smartphones keep you stupid because you cannot make intelligent responses based on the information in front of you on those tiny screens. Your response is almost always uninformed. Because of tiny keyboards, it's not worth responding even if you are lucky enough to have something to say.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Top ten reasons Wikipedia failed.

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:32 pm

Daniel Brandt wrote:
Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:30 pm
Smartphones keep you stupid because you cannot make intelligent responses based on the information in front of you on those tiny screens. Your response is almost always uninformed. Because of tiny keyboards, it's not worth responding even if you are lucky enough to have something to say.
Sounds good to me. I've got a cheap Android phone, and browsing websites on it is almost impossible. Social media would not have become so popular if each company had not developed their own smartphone app. And now we will never be free of the twisted evil of the smartphone app market. The Google Play store is hopelessly polluted with apps containing malware or constantly screaming for money, and even though they make a decent attempt to prevent malware postings, the Apple Store continues to have similar problems. Whole thing has that "idiot's solution" stamped all over it.
I think it's more complicated than Jimbo and his cadre of dinks
Of course it is. Section 230 and the Telecommunications Act had a major role in the prehistory. Various people facilitated Wales and made apologia for him. But ultimately he was the turning point, making decisions (mostly between 2002 and the Essjay scandal in 2007) that made Wikipedia into a badly-run freakshow and a "cult of personality". He gave power to totally unsuitable and unreliable people.

Post Reply