The last coverage on declining editors seems to have been published in 2013. At least that's what I remember.
I also maybe wrong, but the decline in participation has reserved somewhat, though not too significantly.
Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
-
NadirAli
- Sucks Fan
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:55 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bbb23sucks
- Sucker
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
- Location: The Astral Plane
- Has thanked: 1285 times
- Been thanked: 274 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
We had a thread on this before. I can't seem to find it though.
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.
-
ChaosMeRee
- Sucker
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 155 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
It has flatlined, so there's technically no decline to write about. But that is hardly the whole story here.
Nobody seems to want to investigate why Wikipedia seems to have a naturally stable in/out rate now the hype has long since faded and familiarity/contempt has set in. Probably because they might realise the level is merely sufficient to keep unremarkable staff in jobs and volunteer assholes/activists in a hobby, but not even remotely high enough (or of sufficient quality and diversity) to meet their original goal of creating (and maintaining) a free encyclopedia in all practical languages (writing it in impractical languages being one thing activists/obsessives like to spend their time on).
Make no mistake, although stable, to get there from their 2007/8 peak, they shed approximately a trillion billion potential man hours per minute of good faith productivity. It surely terrified the Foundation, until it became clear it was ending in a soft landing, albeit at a remarkably low level. Nobody has written about the rather obvious fact that nothing the Foundation did during this time, not one of their high profile initiatives or merry go round of organisational changes, can be said to have brought about this strange settling. And as anyone can see, virtually every single thing the volunteer community did in that period of decline, was not even remotely designed to stop it. If anything, by then they were quiite happy to be shedding editors.
A Wikipedia where you don't really know who the main players are by sight or reputation, is a very unpredictable thing. Turn your back for a second, and these unknown quantities might do a stupid thing like let girls edit. Or brown folk. Jesus Christ, someone might have even had the absurd idea to start coordinating editors to meet the broader goals of the encyclopedia. They could even start actually enforcing CIVILITY and end the scourge of the Unlockables and their Admin protectors at a stroke. Ridiculous!
Asshole Administrators like Drmies have a lot to answer for in that regard. Their blatantly bad faith and policy violating approach to newcomers has done exactly what people like Drmies and the other people who joined early enough to attain power by developing personal relationships, but far enough removed to have absolutely no loyalty to the great man who set so many of Wikipedia's early ground rules, always wanted. It consolidated power in their hands, and lifted the drawbridge behind them.
It was a terrible period in Wikipedia history, a period it's historians would dearly love to forget, hoping that the Jimbo years or the Gender Gap years are far more interesting to curious cats. They really aren't, when seen from the question of what made Wikipedia what it is today? If it wasn't for a hero called MickMacNee being around during those times (what ever happened to that dude?) there was a very real prospect that the principle that all editors were equal was not just relegated to a mere unenforceable theory, even the theory would be abandoned.
This one brave warrior stopped Wikipedia editors indulging their deepest darkest urges and creating an "Association", a vehicle by which the already quite regular beatings of newcomers and free thinkers could be legitimized. They could be subjected to the benevolent Stewardship of an experienced editor. And if there were still signs of life, resistance, an Administrator like Drmies was always happy to come and deliver the kill shot.
Never had the phrase "Wikipedia is not justice" been more abused, having originally only been meant as a reminder that since Wikipedians are not legally trained there was not much point in making disciplinary proceedings resemble court proceedings. It did NOT mean that injustice was to be tolerated, much less encouraged. The likes of Drmies and his underlings had other ideas.
How ironic that Wikipedians hate Nazis. They are fucking Nazis, in every way that matters. Born to consider themselves superior to non-Nazis, born to enforce a warped and self serving ideology over all they control, and born to expand that perimeter of control ever outwards, by dishonesty, deception and even all out illegality and brutality. They of course don't identify each other by genetics (and clearly nor did the original Nazis), but they know each other by their philosophy. Deference. Reverence. Obedience.
Wikipedia is a cult. It looks like one, If acts like one, it is one. It just isn't a cult of personality. It's a cult of believing you are entitled to power just because you say you are. Because one day you got up and called yourself an editor of an encyclopedia, despite having no training or experience, or worse, not the right training or experience, and nobody had the good sense to shoot you in the head.
It wasn't a cult at first. With proper oversight, it could have worked. The theory is sound. Empowering. The practice was dogshit. Imperfect humans were the weak link. The bad seed. They turned it into a cult. Now they are even charging $75 an hour to advise people on how to edit Wikipedia. Even though editing Wikipedia is not and likely never will be a recognised skill or profession. Anyone can be a Wikipedian if they have a basic level of intelligence and a few spare years of life to waste. It is not hard. It is a hobby. The cult exists to promote and defend the idea that editing Wikipedia is hard, that it should be seen as something it is not.
Most people don't even remember there used to be a sister project to Wikipedia called WikiNews. It is de facto defunct now (you can count the Recent Changes in an hour on one hand). One of the many notable events in this period of Wikipedia history, was It's murder. Although populated by pure bloods, the Wikipedians naturally distrusted their far more blonde and more dashing "Wikinewsie" cousins, engaged as they were in the rather fun activity of actual journalism as well as the rapid creation of Wikipedia like articles on current events. Way more fun than writing articles about Pokemon or TV shows.
But alas, it had to exist, because Jimmy Wales in his wisdom had decreed that "Wikipedia" would not be respected If it couldn't tell the difference between an encyclopedia article and a news story. Even though their encyclopedia was "live", it was clear from the beginning that it would still be an encyclopedia. They were adamant that they would not have articles sourced entirely to first hand news reports. "Wikipedia is not news".
As happened many times, when something Jimmy or policy says conflicts with what cult-like Wikipedia editors want (need), they just ignored him/it. As anyone knows, the sheer buzz of being the first to create a Wikipedia article for a breaking news event, is irresistible. And rather obviously, you can't create such a thing out of anything other than news reporting (you can fuck right off if you think having a "Background" section is a workaround, any half decent news report has a Background section after a few hours) if you have already said you are sticking only to reliable sources ('cos encyclopedia).
The fucking rush man! It is as close as they can get to real world significance, the average punter in the street not giving a damn who a Drmies is or what they do as a hobby. And the fighting, wow, the definitely gets their motors running. So wikinews had to go. It was an inconvenient reminder that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a newspaper. And they just would not stop their silly habit of linking their news reports from Wikipedia's pristine articles. Who did they think they were? A sister project? Fuck them.
They strangled it the way a first born Nazi strangles their annoying little siblings given half a chance. Deprived of labour, living space, oxygen, it died. The most vile abuse was tolerated by Wikipedia's Administrators, If it was directed at wikinewsies. A cult is what a cult does. And they were not just offensive to these rivals, they were nasty.
Jimmy stood by because by then, he had realised If he didn't have a way to make money totally away from Wikipedia, he might not make it to retirement, and citizen news was his big idea. He had vastly underestimated his earning opportunities given the world's ignorance of even the most basic of Wikipedia history. And besides, what was He really going to do anyway? Tell them to cut it out? Ha. Ever tried to tell a Nazi to behave, If you're not a higher ranking Nazi?
If you're not an Administrator or an Unblockable in this current incarnation of Wikipedia, it's Third Reich if you will, you really can't do shit. Not as an individual, or as a group of like minded editors. You might think you can, but you really can't. A hundred failed RfCs will convince even the most optimistic of fools. The repeated failure of really quite sound policy proposals to increase and diversify editor numbers is one of the few areas where academics are asking serious questions. I hope they like the sound of silence, because the cult likes it just fine.
The best you can do is carve out a little piece of land and hope what you do is of sufficient value to the broader goals of the Nazi Wikipedians (which are, unsurprisingly, to try and persuade the world they're not Nazis while ensuring only Nazis find their hobby attractive) that they don't come for you in the night.
This is certainly how Women in Red survives. They are only working to fix the much publicised content gap, eliminating the presence of toxic masculinity in the community, is not on their rader. They like breathing too much. And in their own weird way, like a Vichy France, they actually quite like being their own little micro-Nazi state within the broader empire. Bitches and their boy toys.
Nobody really cares to figure out why it is that this supposedly most inclusive and supportive of WikiProjects has barely moved the needle even on the content front. Failed to meet even their own limited production targets. The answer is obvious. Nazis suck at productivity. Underlings tire of having their noses rubbed in the fact they will never be afforded the special privelages and protections of the poster girls. That's right. Jess Wade is a tool of WikiNazi propaganda. Who knew? I knew.
The extraordinary sight of Jimmy Wales being slapped down in 2009 for blocking Bishonen for 24 hours to send a signal to all Administrators that calling any editor, even the most vile ones, nasty names, was completely unacceptable, was a watershed moment. The community and it's ArbCom, such as it was then, in their wisdom, rejected the idea that such a thing was right not just morally but for sound practical reasons (If you're nice and polite in how you police Wikipedia, while disaffection may remain, nobody but nobody wants to come back as a sock looking to rip their faces off).
There was no going back after that. Wikipedia's future was likely set there and then. Jimmy began his long slow walk into the wilderness. You can perhaps only condemn the man for not having the bravery of his "co-founder" and fronting up when it had become obvious Wikipedia had mutated into something completely unrecognisable. Larry didn't have shares though, so, y'know.
And Bishonen doesn't regret it one bit. Who wouldn't want to be the Undisputed Queen of Wikipedia? Answerable to nobody. Feared by everybody. Wikipedia is progressive after all. A female head of a Nazi dictatorship (the rumours Bishonen is a one-male aside)? Wow! As anyone knows, merely being female isn't enough to guarantee you aren't a born Wikipedia Nazi.
And if anything, being such a violent community ensures only the worst women make it to the top in Wikipedia, by being even worse than the men. Tokens aside. Nazis love their tokens. Women tokens. Black tokens. Jewish tokens. Even a black Jew token Administrator, Malik Shabbaz. Unsurprisingly, trying to survive in Nazi Wikipedia sent him quite mad in the end. Drmies mourns his loss, but won't own the real reasons why his friend voluntarily gave up the chance to sit by his side in perpetuity.
Hence why it seems to be quite plausible to say the current situation of an oddly stable but extremely low activity level, is well explained by the few people who had attained power by the 2009 watershed moment (by which time the effects of too many Nazis was already turning the boom into a slide) ensuring that essential labour is replaced only when spots open up through departures, be those retirements, deaths, or even the odd symbolic sacrifice of a middle ranking Nazi who gets too big for their jackboots.
Powerful non-Nazis whose power pre-dated the rise of the Third Reich and still believed in the founding ideals of Wikipedia inherited from Jimmy, such as civility, equality, humanity, were always a problem. Not that they could do much, obviously. But even irritants are eventually removed. Like Scottywong, who joined in 2007, and whose despatch in July this year had its makings in power battles with Drmies over a decade ago. Nazis love revenge served cold, If the option of, y'know, actual immediate violence is off the table.
Who knows. It's just a theory of mine that just happens to fit the facts on the ground. Further study is required, as they say.
A fully paid up cheerleader like Stephen Harrison of Slate certainly wants no part of pulling at this extremely interesting thread of journalistic enquiry. And he certainly lacks the expertise to do so. Academics are clearly only getting funding for studies that try to justify not looking too hard into the curious fact that all it supposedly takes to serve the planet's information needs is an incredibly small amount of active editors.
There is hope, in the fact this small pool of editors is likely insufficient to maintain a pipeline of promotions up the ladder (as people die or retire). As we are seeing with the ArbCom election, the cult at first tries to pretend it isn't happening, then tries and fails to correct it (because they're not addressing the real reasons for failure, because they find them unpalatable), and lastly, the cult will do something so stupid as a last resort, it might either kill the cult, or propel it to terrifying new heights. Bishonen has always hated the Arbitration Committee. Her only (largely theoretical) bukwark to supreme power. One can only imagine what might happen If the Committee itself becomes defunct. Or worse, becomes a ceremonial organ.
Bishonen for Supreme Leader of Wikipedia 2024?
Nah.
She'd put up a puppet to actually fill the role, while she retains the power in the background.
Now, does anyone know of a really good but really loyal WikiNazi who would be just perfect for that role?
Anyone? Don't be shy now. I kinda dropped a fair few hints.....
D......?
Nobody seems to want to investigate why Wikipedia seems to have a naturally stable in/out rate now the hype has long since faded and familiarity/contempt has set in. Probably because they might realise the level is merely sufficient to keep unremarkable staff in jobs and volunteer assholes/activists in a hobby, but not even remotely high enough (or of sufficient quality and diversity) to meet their original goal of creating (and maintaining) a free encyclopedia in all practical languages (writing it in impractical languages being one thing activists/obsessives like to spend their time on).
Make no mistake, although stable, to get there from their 2007/8 peak, they shed approximately a trillion billion potential man hours per minute of good faith productivity. It surely terrified the Foundation, until it became clear it was ending in a soft landing, albeit at a remarkably low level. Nobody has written about the rather obvious fact that nothing the Foundation did during this time, not one of their high profile initiatives or merry go round of organisational changes, can be said to have brought about this strange settling. And as anyone can see, virtually every single thing the volunteer community did in that period of decline, was not even remotely designed to stop it. If anything, by then they were quiite happy to be shedding editors.
A Wikipedia where you don't really know who the main players are by sight or reputation, is a very unpredictable thing. Turn your back for a second, and these unknown quantities might do a stupid thing like let girls edit. Or brown folk. Jesus Christ, someone might have even had the absurd idea to start coordinating editors to meet the broader goals of the encyclopedia. They could even start actually enforcing CIVILITY and end the scourge of the Unlockables and their Admin protectors at a stroke. Ridiculous!
Asshole Administrators like Drmies have a lot to answer for in that regard. Their blatantly bad faith and policy violating approach to newcomers has done exactly what people like Drmies and the other people who joined early enough to attain power by developing personal relationships, but far enough removed to have absolutely no loyalty to the great man who set so many of Wikipedia's early ground rules, always wanted. It consolidated power in their hands, and lifted the drawbridge behind them.
It was a terrible period in Wikipedia history, a period it's historians would dearly love to forget, hoping that the Jimbo years or the Gender Gap years are far more interesting to curious cats. They really aren't, when seen from the question of what made Wikipedia what it is today? If it wasn't for a hero called MickMacNee being around during those times (what ever happened to that dude?) there was a very real prospect that the principle that all editors were equal was not just relegated to a mere unenforceable theory, even the theory would be abandoned.
This one brave warrior stopped Wikipedia editors indulging their deepest darkest urges and creating an "Association", a vehicle by which the already quite regular beatings of newcomers and free thinkers could be legitimized. They could be subjected to the benevolent Stewardship of an experienced editor. And if there were still signs of life, resistance, an Administrator like Drmies was always happy to come and deliver the kill shot.
Never had the phrase "Wikipedia is not justice" been more abused, having originally only been meant as a reminder that since Wikipedians are not legally trained there was not much point in making disciplinary proceedings resemble court proceedings. It did NOT mean that injustice was to be tolerated, much less encouraged. The likes of Drmies and his underlings had other ideas.
How ironic that Wikipedians hate Nazis. They are fucking Nazis, in every way that matters. Born to consider themselves superior to non-Nazis, born to enforce a warped and self serving ideology over all they control, and born to expand that perimeter of control ever outwards, by dishonesty, deception and even all out illegality and brutality. They of course don't identify each other by genetics (and clearly nor did the original Nazis), but they know each other by their philosophy. Deference. Reverence. Obedience.
Wikipedia is a cult. It looks like one, If acts like one, it is one. It just isn't a cult of personality. It's a cult of believing you are entitled to power just because you say you are. Because one day you got up and called yourself an editor of an encyclopedia, despite having no training or experience, or worse, not the right training or experience, and nobody had the good sense to shoot you in the head.
It wasn't a cult at first. With proper oversight, it could have worked. The theory is sound. Empowering. The practice was dogshit. Imperfect humans were the weak link. The bad seed. They turned it into a cult. Now they are even charging $75 an hour to advise people on how to edit Wikipedia. Even though editing Wikipedia is not and likely never will be a recognised skill or profession. Anyone can be a Wikipedian if they have a basic level of intelligence and a few spare years of life to waste. It is not hard. It is a hobby. The cult exists to promote and defend the idea that editing Wikipedia is hard, that it should be seen as something it is not.
Most people don't even remember there used to be a sister project to Wikipedia called WikiNews. It is de facto defunct now (you can count the Recent Changes in an hour on one hand). One of the many notable events in this period of Wikipedia history, was It's murder. Although populated by pure bloods, the Wikipedians naturally distrusted their far more blonde and more dashing "Wikinewsie" cousins, engaged as they were in the rather fun activity of actual journalism as well as the rapid creation of Wikipedia like articles on current events. Way more fun than writing articles about Pokemon or TV shows.
But alas, it had to exist, because Jimmy Wales in his wisdom had decreed that "Wikipedia" would not be respected If it couldn't tell the difference between an encyclopedia article and a news story. Even though their encyclopedia was "live", it was clear from the beginning that it would still be an encyclopedia. They were adamant that they would not have articles sourced entirely to first hand news reports. "Wikipedia is not news".
As happened many times, when something Jimmy or policy says conflicts with what cult-like Wikipedia editors want (need), they just ignored him/it. As anyone knows, the sheer buzz of being the first to create a Wikipedia article for a breaking news event, is irresistible. And rather obviously, you can't create such a thing out of anything other than news reporting (you can fuck right off if you think having a "Background" section is a workaround, any half decent news report has a Background section after a few hours) if you have already said you are sticking only to reliable sources ('cos encyclopedia).
The fucking rush man! It is as close as they can get to real world significance, the average punter in the street not giving a damn who a Drmies is or what they do as a hobby. And the fighting, wow, the definitely gets their motors running. So wikinews had to go. It was an inconvenient reminder that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a newspaper. And they just would not stop their silly habit of linking their news reports from Wikipedia's pristine articles. Who did they think they were? A sister project? Fuck them.
They strangled it the way a first born Nazi strangles their annoying little siblings given half a chance. Deprived of labour, living space, oxygen, it died. The most vile abuse was tolerated by Wikipedia's Administrators, If it was directed at wikinewsies. A cult is what a cult does. And they were not just offensive to these rivals, they were nasty.
Jimmy stood by because by then, he had realised If he didn't have a way to make money totally away from Wikipedia, he might not make it to retirement, and citizen news was his big idea. He had vastly underestimated his earning opportunities given the world's ignorance of even the most basic of Wikipedia history. And besides, what was He really going to do anyway? Tell them to cut it out? Ha. Ever tried to tell a Nazi to behave, If you're not a higher ranking Nazi?
If you're not an Administrator or an Unblockable in this current incarnation of Wikipedia, it's Third Reich if you will, you really can't do shit. Not as an individual, or as a group of like minded editors. You might think you can, but you really can't. A hundred failed RfCs will convince even the most optimistic of fools. The repeated failure of really quite sound policy proposals to increase and diversify editor numbers is one of the few areas where academics are asking serious questions. I hope they like the sound of silence, because the cult likes it just fine.
The best you can do is carve out a little piece of land and hope what you do is of sufficient value to the broader goals of the Nazi Wikipedians (which are, unsurprisingly, to try and persuade the world they're not Nazis while ensuring only Nazis find their hobby attractive) that they don't come for you in the night.
This is certainly how Women in Red survives. They are only working to fix the much publicised content gap, eliminating the presence of toxic masculinity in the community, is not on their rader. They like breathing too much. And in their own weird way, like a Vichy France, they actually quite like being their own little micro-Nazi state within the broader empire. Bitches and their boy toys.
Nobody really cares to figure out why it is that this supposedly most inclusive and supportive of WikiProjects has barely moved the needle even on the content front. Failed to meet even their own limited production targets. The answer is obvious. Nazis suck at productivity. Underlings tire of having their noses rubbed in the fact they will never be afforded the special privelages and protections of the poster girls. That's right. Jess Wade is a tool of WikiNazi propaganda. Who knew? I knew.
The extraordinary sight of Jimmy Wales being slapped down in 2009 for blocking Bishonen for 24 hours to send a signal to all Administrators that calling any editor, even the most vile ones, nasty names, was completely unacceptable, was a watershed moment. The community and it's ArbCom, such as it was then, in their wisdom, rejected the idea that such a thing was right not just morally but for sound practical reasons (If you're nice and polite in how you police Wikipedia, while disaffection may remain, nobody but nobody wants to come back as a sock looking to rip their faces off).
There was no going back after that. Wikipedia's future was likely set there and then. Jimmy began his long slow walk into the wilderness. You can perhaps only condemn the man for not having the bravery of his "co-founder" and fronting up when it had become obvious Wikipedia had mutated into something completely unrecognisable. Larry didn't have shares though, so, y'know.
And Bishonen doesn't regret it one bit. Who wouldn't want to be the Undisputed Queen of Wikipedia? Answerable to nobody. Feared by everybody. Wikipedia is progressive after all. A female head of a Nazi dictatorship (the rumours Bishonen is a one-male aside)? Wow! As anyone knows, merely being female isn't enough to guarantee you aren't a born Wikipedia Nazi.
And if anything, being such a violent community ensures only the worst women make it to the top in Wikipedia, by being even worse than the men. Tokens aside. Nazis love their tokens. Women tokens. Black tokens. Jewish tokens. Even a black Jew token Administrator, Malik Shabbaz. Unsurprisingly, trying to survive in Nazi Wikipedia sent him quite mad in the end. Drmies mourns his loss, but won't own the real reasons why his friend voluntarily gave up the chance to sit by his side in perpetuity.
Hence why it seems to be quite plausible to say the current situation of an oddly stable but extremely low activity level, is well explained by the few people who had attained power by the 2009 watershed moment (by which time the effects of too many Nazis was already turning the boom into a slide) ensuring that essential labour is replaced only when spots open up through departures, be those retirements, deaths, or even the odd symbolic sacrifice of a middle ranking Nazi who gets too big for their jackboots.
Powerful non-Nazis whose power pre-dated the rise of the Third Reich and still believed in the founding ideals of Wikipedia inherited from Jimmy, such as civility, equality, humanity, were always a problem. Not that they could do much, obviously. But even irritants are eventually removed. Like Scottywong, who joined in 2007, and whose despatch in July this year had its makings in power battles with Drmies over a decade ago. Nazis love revenge served cold, If the option of, y'know, actual immediate violence is off the table.
Who knows. It's just a theory of mine that just happens to fit the facts on the ground. Further study is required, as they say.
A fully paid up cheerleader like Stephen Harrison of Slate certainly wants no part of pulling at this extremely interesting thread of journalistic enquiry. And he certainly lacks the expertise to do so. Academics are clearly only getting funding for studies that try to justify not looking too hard into the curious fact that all it supposedly takes to serve the planet's information needs is an incredibly small amount of active editors.
There is hope, in the fact this small pool of editors is likely insufficient to maintain a pipeline of promotions up the ladder (as people die or retire). As we are seeing with the ArbCom election, the cult at first tries to pretend it isn't happening, then tries and fails to correct it (because they're not addressing the real reasons for failure, because they find them unpalatable), and lastly, the cult will do something so stupid as a last resort, it might either kill the cult, or propel it to terrifying new heights. Bishonen has always hated the Arbitration Committee. Her only (largely theoretical) bukwark to supreme power. One can only imagine what might happen If the Committee itself becomes defunct. Or worse, becomes a ceremonial organ.
Bishonen for Supreme Leader of Wikipedia 2024?
Nah.
She'd put up a puppet to actually fill the role, while she retains the power in the background.
Now, does anyone know of a really good but really loyal WikiNazi who would be just perfect for that role?
Anyone? Don't be shy now. I kinda dropped a fair few hints.....
D......?
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4626
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1158 times
- Been thanked: 1848 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
I generally agree with you, except for this part.
Please don't tell us WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that your long rants have resulted in any "change" on WP. If you really believe you are "changing" anything, you're an even bigger sucker than Drmies is.
Very funny, Mick.ChaosMeRee wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 4:14 pmIf it wasn't for a hero called MickMacNee being around during those times (what ever happened to that dude?)
Please don't tell us WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that your long rants have resulted in any "change" on WP. If you really believe you are "changing" anything, you're an even bigger sucker than Drmies is.
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
ChaosMeRee
- Sucker
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 155 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
I know I have an effect. -->straight face<--ericbarbour wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:38 amI generally agree with you, except for this part.Very funny, Mick.ChaosMeRee wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 4:14 pmIf it wasn't for a hero called MickMacNee being around during those times (what ever happened to that dude?)
Please don't tell us WITH A STRAIGHT FACE that your long rants have resulted in any "change" on WP. If you really believe you are "changing" anything, you're an even bigger sucker than Drmies is.
I have the serene confidence of a Warrior Monk.
I obviously don't reveal everything I know a public forum like this.
But I know there are others who think like me and do what I do for the reasons I do, and they know it has an appreciable and non-trivial effect.
I have friends in high and low places. We do things.
Serious things.
Neither confirming or denying I am Mick has a serious purpose. It is highly exploitative and very effective. It drives a certain kind of person really quite mad. Something that can be used against them and against Wikipedia.
It is something a man would do, if he was the sort of man I might be or might fight for.
A man who uses other people's faults against them.
Jakes's vanity. Vigilant's ego. Hemiauchenia's stupidity. Beeblebrox's Beeblebroxness.
A bad man. A hateful man. But a man whose only weapon is the stinging sensation of a harsh but inconvenient truth.
A man who is heartily amused at the thought a panty sniffing scuzzball like Tarantino might think my words about your good self could cause me any embarrassment or inconvenience or distract from the truths he seeks to hide for his master.
A man who knows Righteous Anger has no value if one forgets the first five letters of that phrase.
Shit, courtesy of Jake's uncontrollable vanity and my skill as a Warrior Monk, I think we can all now see I probably even always had a friend in very high places in Wikipedia and Wikpedicoracy.
Who knew!
I feel obliged by common decency to state for the record that there is no connection of any kind between me an Mason/28Bytes. That I know of.
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4626
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1158 times
- Been thanked: 1848 times
Re: Coverage on Wikiedia's decline has been dissapearing
Yeah yeah whatever.....ultimately it doesn't count unless the Wiki-Bastards notice it. And change their miserable "policies".ChaosMeRee wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 4:23 pmI have friends in high and low places. We do things.
Serious things.
-
NadirAli
- Sucks Fan
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:55 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
I'll bet most "newcomers" are mostly sockpupeteers. The rest of what you wrote is interesting. You ought to save it and out it on the forum blog.ChaosMeRee wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 4:14 pmIt has flatlined, so there's technically no decline to write about. But that is hardly the whole story here.
We ought to have a blog here on Wikipedia criticism in order to generate both traffic and awareness.
Last edited by ericbarbour on Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4626
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1158 times
- Been thanked: 1848 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
There IS a blog. It has existed since 2014--and gets very little traffic. Not for lack of trying.
You are welcome to submit items to the owner, Strelnikov.
-
CarlsJunior
- Sucks Noob
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 3:40 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
Why Wikipedia’s Highway Editors Took the Exit Ramp
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wi ... geeks.html
https://wiki.aaroads.com/
1) Wikipedia contributors specializing in road and highway articles have formed a separate wiki called AARoads Wiki due to increasing challenges and hostility within Wikipedia's platform.
2) The split was prompted by disagreements over Wikipedia's strict interpretation of sourcing policies, particularly concerning the use of primary sources such as information from state Departments of Transportation.
3) The road editors argue that the rigid adherence to guidelines doesn't align with the practical realities they face, especially with local newspapers going out of business.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wi ... geeks.html
https://wiki.aaroads.com/
1) Wikipedia contributors specializing in road and highway articles have formed a separate wiki called AARoads Wiki due to increasing challenges and hostility within Wikipedia's platform.
2) The split was prompted by disagreements over Wikipedia's strict interpretation of sourcing policies, particularly concerning the use of primary sources such as information from state Departments of Transportation.
3) The road editors argue that the rigid adherence to guidelines doesn't align with the practical realities they face, especially with local newspapers going out of business.
-
Bbb23sucks
- Sucker
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
- Location: The Astral Plane
- Has thanked: 1285 times
- Been thanked: 274 times
Re: Coverage on Wikipedia's decline has been disappearing
Already has a thread: https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... =11&t=3170CarlsJunior wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 3:49 amWhy Wikipedia’s Highway Editors Took the Exit Ramp
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wi ... geeks.html
https://wiki.aaroads.com/
1) Wikipedia contributors specializing in road and highway articles have formed a separate wiki called AARoads Wiki due to increasing challenges and hostility within Wikipedia's platform.
2) The split was prompted by disagreements over Wikipedia's strict interpretation of sourcing policies, particularly concerning the use of primary sources such as information from state Departments of Transportation.
3) The road editors argue that the rigid adherence to guidelines doesn't align with the practical realities they face, especially with local newspapers going out of business.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.