What are the ways that can hasten Wikipedia's decline and demise?

[Kiko4564]

[...]

Sure, you can (and many have tried before), but they'll just restore the rights. Even if you get a really high up position (like Steward), the WMF will always be the ultimate owners and will revert your damage in time.

If you want to target them more effectively, start with this post: https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =18&t=2922

Can you please authorise me to view it? I can't view it. Thanks.

[Bbb23sucks]

Can you please authorise me to view it? I can't view it. Thanks.

Replied in PM. Also, I changed your permissions and you should be able to view it now.

[Kiko4564]

Can you please authorise me to view it? I can't view it. Thanks.

Replied in PM. Also, I changed your permissions and you should be able to view it now.

Sir, Yes Sir!

Thank you very much. I'll try the methods that you suggested. Hopefully they'll work.

[journo]

I've put a lot of thought into this lately.

I think a large part of the problem with today's online web are autistics in positions of power. Somehow, many large have a lot of them in staff positions

I have some friends who are autistic, and good people.

However, this is not a trait suited to leading websites the size of Wikipedia or Reddit -shrug-

If I think back to everyone I've had a beef with online, about 95% of them are people who are either diagnosed autistic or who think they would be autistic if they asked professional opinion.

[journo]

the internet went to shit in 2013/2014, including wikipedia
this is the same time period of the gamergate vs SJW war

which no one outside autistic circles even cared about. I still barely know what it was about. But it managed to spark (bad) policy throughout the world

[Ognistysztorm]

I've put a lot of thought into this lately.

I think a large part of the problem with today's online web are autistics in positions of power. Somehow, many large have a lot of them in staff positions

I have some friends who are autistic, and good people.

However, this is not a trait suited to leading websites the size of Wikipedia or Reddit -shrug-

If I think back to everyone I've had a beef with online, about 95% of them are people who are either diagnosed autistic or who think they would be autistic if they asked professional opinion.

It's bound to be unpopular and extremely controversial even to me if your proposal to discriminate against autistic people in positions of power are picked up. On the other hand the keys in getting out of the predicament as you described may relate to transhumanism, the one that's best exemplified by Deku-shrub.

Instead of blanket discrimination why not put a screening test against psychopathy if one wants to get in a position of immense power in organizations such as Justapedia?

[journo]

It's bound to be unpopular and extremely controversial even to me if your proposal to discriminate against autistic people in positions of power are picked up.

Instead of blanket discrimination why not put a screening test against psychopathy if one wants to get in a position of immense power in organizations such as Justapedia?

A psychopathy test is good too, but I also think that many autistics have a constellation of traits that are effectively psychopathy, but not. Aspergers for example used to be called 'autistic psychopathy' for a good chunk of the mid-20th century. The difference being autistics aren't charming and are also emotional, ie they have the added bonus of often being hard to be around. If an autistic starts taking an SSRI, they become even more like a psychopath because now they've lost their emotional spectrum, one of only a few things that separates them from psychopaths. I'll go through the criteria of autism:
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html

Symptoms [including rigidity in behaviour] may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities.

This is why they double down in weird, often patently evil or demonstrably false positions when controversy arrives, rather than just talking it out. They get overwhelmed, they can't understand what the 'right thing' to do in the moment is. So they throw up their hands and say 'no consensus who knows', and look for moral clues or drama to provide them a social role to fill. This is also why it's easy to troll wikipedians, because you can lock them into absurd positions just by provoking them until they shut down on their last weird petty edit.

inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior

As rubricatedseedpod pointed out, once Wikipedians decide on something in a small social domain, they stick to it almost like a ritualized pattern, even if it contradicts how they are treating the same topic elsewhere.

Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.

I think part of the reason for the 'no back and forth discussions on the topic' rule on wikipedia, is that they are pretty incapable of back and forth conversations.

Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

Not many disorders qualify oneself for the countless hours of unpaid work becoming a Wikipedia admin requires.

Highly restricted interests that are abnormal.

This is why Wikipedia has a bazillion articles on niche geek fandom or subspecies of some random animal no one cares about, but bread and butter boring topics are rotting.

Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.

Wikipedia is dependent on effective social management of editors. If staff cannot properly communicate, they aren't going to be to retain a long-term, functioning editor base.

Ever gotten randomly reverted or warned on Wikipedia for stuff that you were sure wasn't against the rules, or even outside of the sources, but some autistic Wikipedia editor was misunderstanding your point or intention? Happens every day, multiple times a day, with established editors and admins.

[ericbarbour]

Instead of blanket discrimination why not put a screening test against psychopathy if one wants to get in a position of immense power in organizations such as Justapedia?

Justapedia can do that, but it will NEVER happen on any WMF project. Lunatics run the asylum etc.

This is why they double down in weird, often patently evil or demonstrably false positions when controversy arrives, rather than just talking it out. They get overwhelmed, they can't understand what the 'right thing' to do in the moment is. So they throw up their hands and say 'no consensus who knows', and look for moral clues or drama to provide them a social role to fill. This is also why it's easy to troll wikipedians, because you can lock them into absurd positions just by provoking them until they shut down on their last weird petty edit.

Happens almost every day on AN/I. It's easier for an admin to abuse blocking and reverting, because everyone is forced to "fight it out" on talkpages or noticeboards--places that SANE people usually avoid.

I think part of the reason for the 'no back and forth discussions on the topic' rule on wikipedia, is that they are pretty incapable of back and forth conversations.

Many of them are quite sociopathic and could not sustain or even comprehend any kind of serious discussion. No different from any real-world political organization, where the worst sociopaths end up in charge of everything, because they are obsessed with chasing power.

Wikipedia is dependent on effective social management of editors. If staff cannot properly communicate, they aren't going to be to retain a long-term, functioning editor base.

If there was not an insane cult following, started and encouraged by a narcissistic Ayn Rand fanatic and fueled by his "useful idiots", it would probably have collapsed in 2005. Or even earlier--the whole stupid thing hung by a thread for its first 3 years.

[Ognistysztorm]

Instead of blanket discrimination why not put a screening test against psychopathy if one wants to get in a position of immense power in organizations such as Justapedia?

Justapedia can do that, but it will NEVER happen on any WMF project. Lunatics run the asylum etc.

This is why they double down in weird, often patently evil or demonstrably false positions when controversy arrives, rather than just talking it out. They get overwhelmed, they can't understand what the 'right thing' to do in the moment is. So they throw up their hands and say 'no consensus who knows', and look for moral clues or drama to provide them a social role to fill. This is also why it's easy to troll wikipedians, because you can lock them into absurd positions just by provoking them until they shut down on their last weird petty edit.

Happens almost every day on AN/I. It's easier for an admin to abuse blocking and reverting, because everyone is forced to "fight it out" on talkpages or noticeboards--places that SANE people usually avoid.

I think part of the reason for the 'no back and forth discussions on the topic' rule on wikipedia, is that they are pretty incapable of back and forth conversations.

Many of them are quite sociopathic and could not sustain or even comprehend any kind of serious discussion. No different from any real-world political organization, where the worst sociopaths end up in charge of everything, because they are obsessed with chasing power.

Wikipedia is dependent on effective social management of editors. If staff cannot properly communicate, they aren't going to be to retain a long-term, functioning editor base.

If there was not an insane cult following, started and encouraged by a narcissistic Ayn Rand fanatic and fueled by his "useful idiots", it would probably have collapsed in 2005. Or even earlier--the whole stupid thing hung by a thread for its first 3 years.

That sounds a lot like Synanon, which I learned yesterday on a happenstance.

[adamovicm]

Guys, just to greet you, I haven't been on a forum for a while. I spent some time travelling, got pretty serious back problem on the first day of return and also have some other personal problem. Just to write something to greet you all. I see that forum is very much active...