Page 1 of 4
What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:01 pm
by Ognistysztorm
Some would want it to be destroyed altogether, like Theranos, while some may prefer that competitors arise to end Wikipedia's monopolistic hold on the information market. What do you think the endgame against Wikipedia should be?
One likely scenario I can think of is regulatory scrutiny and possible actions on how it treat its outcasts, give that what it does would be equivalent to "doxxing" and mistaking someone else as the marathon bomber. Trim the community aspect which often give rise to all kinds of toxic synergies and adopt reformative stances in terms of user moderation so that actions instead of individuals get "banned" so that it can still bleed out "good content" from even the most incorrigible people. Less emphasis on drama pages, more on edit filters and machine learning algorithms instead so as to do away those synergies as much as possible.
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:25 pm
by Bbb23sucks
Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:01 pm
Some would want it to be destroyed altogether, like Theranos, while some may prefer that competitors arise to end Wikipedia's monopolistic hold on the information market. What do you think the endgame against Wikipedia should be?
One likely scenario I can think of is regulatory scrutiny and possible actions on how it treat its outcasts, give that what it does would be equivalent to "doxxing" and mistaking someone else as the marathon bomber. Trim the community aspect which often give rise to all kinds of toxic synergies and adopt reformative stances in terms of user moderation so that actions instead of individuals get "banned" so that it can still bleed out "good content" from even the most incorrigible people. Less emphasis on drama pages, more on edit filters and machine learning algorithms instead so as to do away those synergies as much as possible.
A revolution.
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:04 pm
by wexter
I "don't have an endgame" for Wikipedia as it has so much momentum and support as an institution (and profit center for Google) that it has "a life of its own."
AOL used to be the center of the universe now it's a zombie-joke but we all know people that still use AOL, same with Yahoo, and remember Nokia phones!
For the first time, I do see "new technology" supplanting Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is obsolete .... Most importantly the format is wrong for current times.
Wikipedia's replacement will provide;
-short explanations
-simple to understand
-drubbed down
-no sourcing
-well written
-centrally generated
-computer authored
-authoritarian controlled
-contention free
-more accurate on balance
-contain subtle bias (select minority of articles)
-be tailored to each person
-contain marketing
-replace Wikipedia, blogs, news, and "the press'
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... 365#p24365
Simply put, Wikipedia has too many words for current sensibilities
Don't believe me ask "Johnny Mnemonic."
When you want to know how things really work, study them when they're coming apart.
William Gibson
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:07 pm
by ByteOr
Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:01 pm
Some would want it to be destroyed altogether, like Theranos, while some may prefer that competitors arise to end Wikipedia's monopolistic hold on the information market. What do you think the endgame against Wikipedia should be?
One likely scenario I can think of is regulatory scrutiny and possible actions on how it treat its outcasts, give that what it does would be equivalent to "doxxing" and mistaking someone else as the marathon bomber. Trim the community aspect which often give rise to all kinds of toxic synergies and adopt reformative stances in terms of user moderation so that actions instead of individuals get "banned" so that it can still bleed out "good content" from even the most incorrigible people. Less emphasis on drama pages, more on edit filters and machine learning algorithms instead so as to do away those synergies as much as possible.
People realizing that if every scientific organization unanimously said that the earth was flat tomorrow, Wikipedia would be forced to change the definition because that’s what sources say. This is exactly how Wikipedia operates; whatever content farm says the most is the official narrator.
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:23 am
by ericbarbour
Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:01 pm
One likely scenario I can think of is regulatory scrutiny and possible actions on how it treat its outcasts
Don't delude yourself. Won't happen. The only POSSIBLE change I can forsee would be a curtailment of Section 230 protections, probably due to the Gonzalez case. If not that, another related case. Then the WMF would raise a great stink that "THE SUPREME COURT IS TRYING TO DESTROY YOUR MAGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA". Unless Congress changes the law to allow unmoderated posting again (VERY unlikely at this late date thanks to Google, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia etc. pissing off Beltway denizens) the WMF will then have to crack down on the "anyone can edit" lie. Ya never know--severe moderation might be better for it. Might be worse.
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:28 am
by Bbb23sucks
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:23 am
Ya never know--severe moderation might be better for it. Might be worse.
I am almost certain that it would be much MUCH worse than the already hyper-senative, oppressive "moderation" that already exists.
Re: What is your endgame against Wikipedia?
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:36 pm
by wexter
Unless Congress changes the law to allow unmoderated posting again (VERY unlikely at this late date thanks to Google, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia etc. pissing off Beltway denizens) the WMF will then have to crack down on the "anyone can edit" lie. Ya never know--severe moderation might be better for it. Might be worse.
Moderating content adds both cost and risk; "nobody can edit" will be far cheaper and more controllable than "anyone can edit" or "some people can edit."
Section 230 or not; what you see on the internet will be individualized to your biases with feedback thereby tricking people into talking to themselves.
The whole kit and caboodle, of content, will be managed by for-profit corporations and it will be tightly controlled and narrow in scope.
Folks creating content on Wikipedia will age out and be silently marginalized without ever realizing it. The folks editing Wikipedia will "spin" as the site loses its readership to alternatives.
Nothing dramatic will or needs to be done..
What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise?
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:19 pm
by Ognistysztorm
What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise? Some of the ways that can be think of involves the creation of multiple competitor platforms that somehow manage to maximize encyclopedism and minimize politics/community cesspools, and the revelation of multiple weapon-grade scandals on mainstream media, such as the Holocaust distortion and past ugly happenings involving kid diddlers.
Re: What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise?
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:25 am
by Bbb23sucks
Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:19 pm
What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise? Some of the ways that can be think of involves the creation of multiple competitor platforms that somehow manage to maximize encyclopedism and minimize politics/community cesspools, and the revelation of multiple weapon-grade scandals on mainstream media, such as the Holocaust distortion and past ugly happenings involving kid diddlers.
You could help me write anti-Wikipedia propaganda/exposés to be spread by bots. I am a lot better at writing code than I am at trying to convince people.
Re: What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise?
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2023 5:16 pm
by Ognistysztorm
I'm unsure as on when Jennsaurus will come back but perhaps we can forward as many ugly scandals, big or not to her as possible so that she could do multiple hit pieces against Wikipedia and bring about its downfall.