Wikipedia Sucks!

Wikipedia blocks a user for reporting an ISIS terrorist. This would be primetime news material considering the negative news coverage against Wikipedia these days.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13569

Not that I give Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt when it comes to blocks but surely there's more to the story than that.

Archer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:41 am

Not that I give Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt when it comes to blocks but surely there's more to the story than that.

Chief, it's always a series of rabbit-holes with sub-basements on top of sub-basements all the way down to hell.com.

Strelnikov wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:54 pm

Archer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:41 am

Not that I give Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt when it comes to blocks but surely there's more to the story than that.

Chief, it's always a series of rabbit-holes with sub-basements on top of sub-basements all the way down to hell.com.

I'm sure you are more familiar with Wikipedia than I, but are you certain you're not giving Wikipedia a bit too much credit? They're really quite crude, predictable and vulgar when you get right down to it. Common shysters.

Archer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:27 pm

I'm sure you are more familiar with Wikipedia than I, but are you certain you're not giving Wikipedia a bit too much credit? They're really quite crude, predictable and vulgar when you get right down to it. Common shysters.

No he's not giving too much credit. If anything he's understating how they "operate".

Shysters, yes, without question. But shysters who operate under a special kind of secrecy-thru-obscurity. I've never seen an administrator who wasn't running a long list of sockpuppet accounts. Most never identified. The same goes for paid editors of a "serious nature" plus all kinds of crackpots who want to control some or other content. Angry-typing at each other 24/7, somewhere on WP or IRC or even DIscord.

Sounds like a hell to me.

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 08, 2024 7:19 am

But shysters who operate under a special kind of secrecy-thru-obscurity.

Of course they do - they can't very well advertise their fraud. Likewise it makes sense that they maintain sockpuppet accounts, use surveillance, coordinate with one another, and generally do whatever they can to disseminate their propaganda and retain their influence, at least insofar that they do not undermine the quaint public image of hard-working, individual volunteers who could not possibly have any ulterior motives (unthinkable, or at least you're not supposed to think it, per WP:AGF)

Archer wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:41 am

Not that I give Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt when it comes to blocks but surely there's more to the story than that.

The summary is that a user wants to report an editor who's an ISIS terrorist to the admins only for the former to get blocked by Bbb23 for "NOTHERE" instead.