EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by CrowsNest » Mon May 07, 2018 11:17 pm

AndrewForson wrote:Perhaps they are not aware of this board's existence. -- after all, why would they be? What steps have been taken to publicise it to Wikimedians and challenge them to participate?
They know we are here. The challenge takes many forms, but it is essentially this - justify what you do, on a platform you do not control. They are not keen to accept this challenge. Not even on Wikipediocracy, where the red carpet is well and truly rolled out.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by AndrewForson » Tue May 08, 2018 6:30 am

CrowsNest wrote:
AndrewForson wrote:Perhaps they are not aware of this board's existence. -- after all, why would they be? What steps have been taken to publicise it to Wikimedians and challenge them to participate?
They know we are here. The challenge takes many forms, but it is essentially this - justify what you do, on a platform you do not control. They are not keen to accept this challenge. Not even on Wikipediocracy, where the red carpet is well and truly rolled out.

Why would you think that? I see no evidence -- can you point to any active measures that you or anyone else has taken to publicise the existence of this board directly to Wikimedians? (I don't mean the handful who hang around WO, I mean Wikimedians at large.) Has anyone tried posting to the wikimedia-l mailing list? Or mentioning this board on Jimbo's talk page? Or asking at Meta for a grant to support the board? Or giving a presentation on this board at Wikimania? No, I thought not.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue May 08, 2018 8:17 am

When I talk about WP-NL, who do you want to reach? Wikipedia-NL is in the hands of a group of I think 10-15 people who are governing with socks WP-NL. Mabey even less. Almost everybody else has left for them.
The huge problem is they don't understand what they are doing wrong, because they have created a save autistic world where they feel at home. For them it's perfect what they have created and are doing. For them it's not illogical. They are in general nice guy's with a good education, sometimes of them have even good jobs, but the wiki surrounding, the internet conversation makes it impossible to function for them. They lose complete track in the wiki labyrinth and start to behave themself in in way what is for us foolish.

Compere it with color blindness. How to convince a group of color blind painters there work is not good if you are in the middle of that group color blind painters and you are the only one who is seeing colours. At the end they start to say you are crazy, and that is the reason they block every other opinion. Because for them colours are nonsens. And last you have only a group of colour blind painters, because everybody else has left. And that is the situation on WP-NL at the moment.
Many times before I pointed at this effect of repression in a wiki system. And because wiki's are attractive for autistic people they are the stayers. They love the regularity, the company of other autistic people, the same way they are thinking. Every wiki population change slowly in a complete autistic population.

I told it before, Romaine, CaAL, sock puppet Wikischim, sock puppet Vintroll uhh Vinvlught, our new Arb, sock puppet Natuur12, sock Trijnstel are a kind of family for me. I know all the tantrums of the totally autistic Ymnens, the guide in my Global Lock. I know there complete illogic way of thinking, there trolling, they are like brothers for me. I know immediately when they are trolling with there sok puppets like for instance the multiple user De Wikischim, a kind of whore account. Everybody who need a sock can log in. I know every Romaine troll trick. They get boring at they end. Every time the same people create a new avatar, but I recognise them.

Do you really think they come over here to discuss with me there sock puppet army and there trolling? They know I know they are trolling, and it's not very attractive to discuss that in a surrounding they can't control I suppose.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 08, 2018 11:24 pm

AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
AndrewForson wrote:Perhaps they are not aware of this board's existence. -- after all, why would they be? What steps have been taken to publicise it to Wikimedians and challenge them to participate?
They know we are here. The challenge takes many forms, but it is essentially this - justify what you do, on a platform you do not control. They are not keen to accept this challenge. Not even on Wikipediocracy, where the red carpet is well and truly rolled out.

Why would you think that? I see no evidence -- can you point to any active measures that you or anyone else has taken to publicise the existence of this board directly to Wikimedians? (I don't mean the handful who hang around WO, I mean Wikimedians at large.) Has anyone tried posting to the wikimedia-l mailing list? Or mentioning this board on Jimbo's talk page? Or asking at Meta for a grant to support the board? Or giving a presentation on this board at Wikimania? No, I thought not.
Change the record Rogol. As for evidence, I can think of at least two occasions where we have been mentioned on the drama boards, and a couple more where lurkers obviously tipped people off that their ears should be burning. The cult knows we are here, clearly. It's rather stupid to assume otherwise. It would be like burger fans not knowing about Five Guys. Unpossible. Word of mouth is our means of self-promotion, so if they actively suppress any mention of us as a bad site, as they have done already, even better, as it makes us seem even more dangerous and exciting and worth looking up. But don't assume those readers should or ever would be posters. Part of what goes into creating the mutant that is a good little Wikipediot, is making them think it's OK to ignore any criticism if it occurs "offsite". Remember, we are not real people in their eyes, and there is no world outside Wikipedia, not for the purposes of providing food for thought for self-analysis and reflection, only sources to be scraped and demons to be slayed.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed May 09, 2018 10:25 am

CrowsNest wrote:[Remember, we are not real people in their eyes, and there is no world outside Wikipedia, not for the purposes of providing food for thought for self-analysis and reflection, only sources to be scraped and demons to be slayed.

I am crazy in there eyes, you can read that in my blog. That's fine, so I can speak free, because who can blame a crackhead idiot? I tell for ones and for ever what they are, They are a bunch of liars, trolls, profiteers who saw a opportunity to have a free lunch on the expenses of the donors. And who stared to behave like children of four years old when they were caught by me. Met hun jatten in de suikerpot like we say in Holland. Because, seen there social positions they know very, very well there behavior is crazy. But, the lady's and gentleman thought they were save behind there sock pupped army. And save behind some fair tails told by "wiki lawyers" they liked to believed they were in Holland protected by the California law and WMF legal. But they were not! And now the lady's and gentleman are locked up in a Hotel in California and are trolling till they drop. The fools! And now again a casper sock in arbcom. We troll, troll, troll on. Idiots!

And yes, now they start to understand it's serious.
To late my friends, it's to late. You can fix nothing anymore, the only right thing to do is to delete complete WP-NL and start over from the sketch.
Mega troll Romain blew it with his Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU and his tremendous trolling, ended up in a global block for me because I warned years ago the whole thing was illegal in this way. Bunch of fools and trolls what you are! To treat an old man who was simple right in these way, at they end even up by fixed and lying and trolling a global block by basterd James Alexander! Only to hide the true!

Stelletje etterbakken bij elkaar dat jullie zijn! Ja, nu kun je niet meer terug, gek he? Bunch of idiots, after tomorrow, 10 may there site is even more illegal as it was! If they had listed to Whaledad an me we have had plenty of time to fix the problems. But now, our hero's are troll Casper and friends and Ymnes, who is a complet autist, and there "solution" was to troll away the problems.
Of course they are reading here, Crow, of course they do. And WMF too. But they will never appear here, because they don't have a blocking tool in there hands to mute me.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by AndrewForson » Wed May 09, 2018 8:22 pm

Oh dear, Maurice, I don't really think that you're in the best position to lecture other people about constantly harping on the same thing. Your repetitive rants about how everyone on those other sites is a lunatic poltroon afraid to debate with you tacitly admitting the validity of your position by ignoring you are, well, repetitive. The suggestion that the relation of this site, and your rants, to Wikipedia is akin to the relationship of Five Guys to MacDonalds, is simply delusional. The relation of this site to Wikipedia is like the relationship of Joe's Greasy Spoon in Whitechapel to MacDonalds, and the fact that a couple of people in a MacDonalds once mentioned Joe's (doubtless very excellent) establishment is no sort of evidence for the proposition that the Board of Directors of MacDonalds are kept awake at night worrying how to counter the existential threat to their business empire that Joe poses. If you want to challenge people at some other site to come here and debate with you, go to that site and issue that challenge. If you choose to believe that they somehow really know all about you but are all in some gigantic conspiracy to pretend they they've never heard of this site because they are afraid of it -- well, then I have news for you. The vast majority of Wikipedians have never heard of this site, never heard of you, and never heard of your criticisms, however trenchant and well-evidenced they might be.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed May 09, 2018 9:51 pm

AndrewForson wrote:The vast majority of Wikipedians have never heard of this site, never heard of you, and never heard of your criticisms, however trenchant and well-evidenced they might be.

About other wiki's I don't know, but you can be sure everybody of the insiders of WP-NL knows this site. Because the incrowd is extreem small, but close connected. What is left, because most of them have left. The people who are in power have that power for years and years. Most time they are not active on Wikipedia, never wrote one single article. Or some rubbish, long ago. It are always the same extreem poor editors who get the jobs. You have to be a complete lunatic to become a Arb of sysop, otherwise you have no change. There are for years and years the same wiki managers who behave themself as dictator, so nothing will change there. And at the moment you open your mouth you are blocked. Do you really think they come over here to discuss the matter?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by CrowsNest » Thu May 10, 2018 9:18 am

AndrewForson wrote:Oh dear, Maurice, I don't really think that you're in the best position to lecture other people about constantly harping on the same thing. Your repetitive rants about how everyone on those other sites is a lunatic poltroon afraid to debate with you tacitly admitting the validity of your position by ignoring you are, well, repetitive. The suggestion that the relation of this site, and your rants, to Wikipedia is akin to the relationship of Five Guys to MacDonalds, is simply delusional. The relation of this site to Wikipedia is like the relationship of Joe's Greasy Spoon in Whitechapel to MacDonalds, and the fact that a couple of people in a MacDonalds once mentioned Joe's (doubtless very excellent) establishment is no sort of evidence for the proposition that the Board of Directors of MacDonalds are kept awake at night worrying how to counter the existential threat to their business empire that Joe poses. If you want to challenge people at some other site to come here and debate with you, go to that site and issue that challenge. If you choose to believe that they somehow really know all about you but are all in some gigantic conspiracy to pretend they they've never heard of this site because they are afraid of it -- well, then I have news for you. The vast majority of Wikipedians have never heard of this site, never heard of you, and never heard of your criticisms, however trenchant and well-evidenced they might be.
I never mentioned McDonald's, so I fear the purpose of that analogy went right over your head. Going to the WMF to issue challenges is a fool's errand which belies a real misunderstanding of who they are, as you surely know because you've tried it, to no great success. The assumption that I aim to reach the vast majority of Wikipedians is of course faulty, and shows me you haven't really been listening to my stuff at all, much less know enough about it to be criticising it for repetition, lack of effectiveness, or anything else.

You will get nowhere in regard to your aims unless or until you accept some fundamental truths about the cult. They are hardwired to publicly ignore criticism if it comes from people they have deemed to be suppressive persons. That includes you, if you didn't know it already. Their reaction to such unpersons is almost a reflex, something they do without even thinking why, illustrating that it really is a kind of cult.

They don't even properly pay attention to criticism if it appears in the mainstream media. Listening to critics isn't remotely what Wikipedians are about, and while some of what the WMF does is responsive, a lot of it is PR bullshit, and it doesn't matter either way since it is clear they have little to no control over what actually happens on Wikipedia, and no real wish to stop the harm it causes unless or until fundamental issues are fixed.

If your aim is to debate with the WMF about these fundamentals, forget it, it will never happen. If you haven't realised it already, I question your faculties. If your aim is to debate with Wikipedians, feel free to take advantage of the Wikipediocracy point of view and use their platform to do so, since they seem to think this is a worthwhile activity for genuine critics. It isn't, as seen by their lack of success and continuing death spiral, and the fact that even though lots of Wikipedians of assorted critical stripes are on their site as members in good standing, there's very little debate going on at all, especially now Uncle Zoloft has ensured all serious critics have either left voluntarily or been banned by him for upsetting the resident cultists, lapsed or otherwise. The Wikipediots there do what Wikipediots do when confronted with harsh truths - evade, attack, ignore. With his blessing. You know this already, and I hope it is why you left (or were you the third person banned alongside me and Graf?)

The reasons why they do what they do on Wikipediocracy are obvious to serious critics, the sort of people who know what drives Wikipedians, what makes them tick and are actually working to combat it. You cannot debate with people if they are not genuinely interested in debate, you can only merely illustrate that fact. And you cannot achieve anything if your actual target audience was ill-chosen, either because it is in no position to do anything with the information you are giving them, or has a policy of actively ignoring it because they think it is suppressive bullshit.

The only intended audiences for my material, are those who it is meant to shame or embarrass (the purpose there being to show that it doesn't), and those who can understand it, are likely to be receptive to it, and crucially, are in some position to do something about it, from the position that failure to get the cult to engage with you is not necessarily a failure of your cause.

Unlike yourself Rogol, someone like me, working for what I am, using the means I use, has no realistic expectation that their impact will be visible and obvious, much less immediate. And a critic like myself expects any engagent from a target audience to occur most likely over private channels, if it happens at all. A lot of what I do necessarily requires some level of plausible deniability on the part of those I have reached and recruited to my cause.

So, with all that said, the question remains. Do you want to be a serious critic Rogol? Or do you want to keep flogging those dead horses of yours.....

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by AndrewForson » Thu May 10, 2018 1:02 pm

Boris, thanks for explaining your views so fully, and in particular for your clear indication that people who disagree with you simply do not understand what you're doing. I'm willing to say that I don't entirely agree with you, and I don't entirely understand what you're doing. It doesn't look as if there's much common ground for further discussion.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: EU policy/Big Fat Brussels Meeting V

Post by CrowsNest » Thu May 10, 2018 1:16 pm

AndrewForson wrote:Boris, thanks for explaining your views so fully, and in particular for your clear indication that people who disagree with you simply do not understand what you're doing. I'm willing to say that I don't entirely agree with you, and I don't entirely understand what you're doing. It doesn't look as if there's much common ground for further discussion.
I made no such indication, as anyone can see. That aside, logically, you either don't understand, or you don't agree. You can't do both, and remain credible at least. Disliking stuff they don't understand, that's the Wikipedia way. We're here to criticise the Wikipedia way, expose it as the bunk it really is. Join us, if you understand and agree with that position. Critics who emulate the Wikipedia way, they will find Wikipediocracy a more natural home, Zoloft a more genial host. Think Ming and AndyTheGrump, two people who have never let their own obvious ignorance of what was being said prevent them expressing their dislike for it. But yes, this does all feel eerily familiar, and I don't think we got anywhere then either.

Post Reply