Is vandalism keeping Wikipedia running

[Bbb23sucks]

they are pedantic Dunning-Kruger types, who really don't understand the subject material. They instead fetishize "rules and conventions", constantly harassing the writers and reverting them according to "policy" - they don't add meaningful new content, or engage in the intellectual effort to actually synthesize opposing views and provide a nuanced narrative. Instead, they latch on to some trivial issue, revert everything the writer wrote without explanation or discussion, and then if the writer persists in trying to edit then they eventually start following the writer around reverting basically everything they write. If the writer then reverts the revert, they can portray the writer as a "persistent troll" and get them banned.

Wow. You just perfectly described Bbb23.

Your thoughts on content and rules also very much apply with the difference of treatment between Koavf and EEng:
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =19&t=3165
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =19&t=2913

[Lir]

Yes, I don't know anything about that, but I've come to see that this is a consistent pattern across many communities, especially in an online environment. Inevitably, there are people who are doing something, but there are other people who have nothing to offer, and this latter sort insists that they provide some kind of leadership - so maybe they aren't a writer, but they are an "editor". Look, they even have a barn star!

These people are parasites, and they just sink themselves into a community, and begin building themselves up by tearing other people down - they do it again and again, until they themselves suffer the same fate to some more aggressive ladder climber (most of the people who campaigned to ban me, were themselves banned years later). When such institutions endure, it's not because of the leadership, but in spite of it. It's the people who are actually doing the work who get things done, but they don't get a big Barn Star award - they instead get to deal with endless reverts from pedantic idiots, and if they dare to argue back they get banned for "edit warring". Why put up with it? It's a cult mentality, and people get sucked into trying to please the cult leader - but why bother? Just get out, stop editing, write your own stuff and move on with your life. It's not a paid job, and it's not going to change the world or fundamentally improve human society.

It's the old Animal Farm metaphor, and the problem starts at the top - Why was Jimbo Wales ever head of the project? What did he bring to the table? He isn't any kind of intellectual or academic, he wasn't innovative or brilliant, the idea for Wikipedia was hardly novel and in the late 1990s the Yahoo! web portal was originally heading in the exact same direction. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a Wikipedia run by someone who lacks an education is inevitably going to reflect that weakness. Regardless, for Jimbob the Porn Hustler, Wikipedia was never about knowledge or humanity - it was about personal profit and narcissistic self-promotion.

[Lir]

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654

Instead of constructively adding to the site, he made banning people his primary objective - so much that he has the Block a User link handy right there at the top of his page. Some people simply can't produce anything of merit, so their sole source of self-esteem and accomplishment comes from undermining those who do produce.

[ericbarbour]

Yes, I don't know anything about that, but I've come to see that this is a consistent pattern across many communities, especially in an online environment.

I've said the same over and over and it just doesn't sink in. Wikipedia pretends to be a "serious project", yet internally it might as well be 4chan or KiwiFarms. Lunatics running the asylum and everything. And Wales cheerfully gave them the key to the place.

It's the old Animal Farm metaphor, and the problem starts at the top - Why was Jimbo Wales ever head of the project? What did he bring to the table? He isn't any kind of intellectual or academic, he wasn't innovative or brilliant, the idea for Wikipedia was hardly novel and in the late 1990s the Yahoo! web portal was originally heading in the exact same direction. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a Wikipedia run by someone who lacks an education is inevitably going to reflect that weakness. Regardless, for Jimbob the Porn Hustler, Wikipedia was never about knowledge or humanity - it was about personal profit and narcissistic self-promotion.

Again I've said much the same thing for 15 years. The "Great Wikipedians" know DAMN WELL how fucked up their little universe is, and what a poor excuse for a "visionary" Wales is. Yet they keep the lie going and continue to pat themselves on the back for "making the internet better" ha ha. And now the Wikimedia Foundation is raking in mountains of cash every year--and wasting it on inflated salaries and stupid internal projects.

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654

The things I could tell you about Mr. Pellegrini. What an amazing fat bastard. Did very little serious content work, just fought with/banned new users, accused non-cult-members and WP critics of being "demons to be destroyed", and controlled "Featured Articles" like a little king. Other people saw him get away with hundreds of awful things, and imitated him. He was finally desysopped last May for inactivity. It wasn't "FUN" anymore.

[Lir]

The things I could tell you about Mr. Pellegrini. What an amazing fat bastard. Did very little serious content work, just fought with/banned new users...

Well, he is fat, but I don't hold that against him. Absolutely Dunning-Kruger full of himself though. As an example, I know the Falklands War was a pet interest of his, and I studied the Falklands War at Oxford. Yes, I did. I had a whole seminar on it, taught by an army officer, and then I did research at the Rhodes Library. So presumably, the professional trained historian has something more to add than the hobbyist - but as you said, Raul wasn't interested in making the site better. He was there for the masturbatory fantasy of leadership. There's an old saying that those who want to be in charge are those who shouldn't be. It's just Dunning-Kruger, a real world phenomenon.

[ericbarbour]

Jimmy Wales could have made it work, if he had kept control if it as a cult of personality until such time that it could be turned into a proper organisation. Clearly in the entire history of Wikipedia editing, most people joined when the horrible truth was not known, Jimmy included I would say. The very thing that made Wikipedia a success, is why it cannot ever be more than a cult.

I would tend to agree. The problem came in 2005, when it grew too damn fast, and too many people wanted admin rights. They promoted a lot of really bad actors (remember Ryulong or Jossi or FT2?) That kind of explosive growth is almost impossible to manage, cult or not. Wales had a chance to clamp down but didn't. That's on him--the rest of it is on people he could not control.

Jimmy doesn't believe anymore. He'd admit it if you got him drunk. He'd say he was deeply ashamed of what Wikipedia is. You can't be as intuitive as he is, and not see it.

Hope you're right. They literally forced him out, the only "symbolic figurehead" they had. For the rest of his life he will be an semi-irrelevant historical figure in internet history. Occasional journalists will still kiss his ass and people will give him minor awards for being an "internet pioneer". You should see the mountain of trophies Vint Cerf owns. That's probably the best Jimbo can expect.

Christ knows every OTHER Walesian attempt to start a web empire has been a massive failure, except maybe fandom.com. I've read that Cerf owns millions in stock in tech startups that people practically forced on him over the past 50 years. As long as you're getting Jimbo drunk, you could ask him how much Google stock he has.