Everipeidia blockchain migration

[Graaf Statler]

Ok, now we have something to talk about. Although I share your worry's about the content and the people of Everipedia knows that, I still think Evripedia has a better change to solve these problems at the long run. Because Wikipedia/ WFM is extreem demotivating for content writers in a different way than you think. It is not in that way about the money.

I have decided to become a Evripedia editor two days ago, after long and deep thinking. I don't need a Ferrari, I had ones had a Porche in my life and that was the most terrible experience I ever had about cars. If I get a chocolate bar or a few airmails I am happy. And a few friendly words, and if I am not used as the fox in a crazy fox hunting of wiki idiots it should make me very happy too.

It is the money streams in WMF/chapters/Wikipedia what ruins the project. One part of the users has to do the work for free, and a other part what is doing nothing except most times trolling and playing policeman gets the benefits. It is about that system error. And that is the reason I think Everipedia has a much better change than Wikipedia , also to solve all these problems.
And what is the future of Wikipedia after the introduction of article 13? I think it is very black....

[CrowsNest]

You are entitled to think whatever you like about Everipedia, and say it here too. Although hopefully not with tedious regularity every time it comes up. But do not presume to act like others have to agree with it, or that you can use it as a pretext to tell others what they can and can't post about on this site, or where their posts must go. You are not staff here. Use the private channels for your forum management requests, or I will.

My apologies to you Paul. Unless or until you hear otherwise from a staff member, feel free to ignore Andrew's request.

How very odd. You seem not to have noticed that my comments were suggestions, or requests, as you can plainly see from the use of the word "please" -- perhaps it is not in your lexicon. The only person issuing orders here would be you -- apparently you take the view that you are free to issue orders to me, but I am not free to make even polite requests of anyone else. Perhaps you would care to explain the asymmetry ... but no, don't waste everyone's time, I'll just state plainly that your ridiculous arrogance is a futile attempt to bully me, which I treat with the scorn and contempt it deserves. Ha ha.

You are also apologising to Paul Bedson for something, presumably something you have done or feel responsible for. What would that be exactly? Anyway, as you so correctly explain to Mr Bedson, he is free to ignore my politely worded request, just as I am free to ignore your arrogant bullying.

We return to the topic of conversation, which is Everipedia.

I'm apologising for him being subjected to the sort of behaviour he encounters on Wikipediocracy. Damn right he is free to ignore you, but I'm not going to let such a self-serving and frankly pathetic accusation of bullying go unanswered. It is the good people of Wikipediocracy who cry about being bullied while not doing anything about it, since their complaints were not genuine. Any fool can phrase an out of order demand from a position of unwarranted authority as a polite request. It's embarrassing how you seem to think the people here are as stupid as those who entertain the idea Wikipediocracy is a debate platform. If you think I am bullying you, report me. If not, carry on don't what you're doing (ignoring your own request that Everipedia discussion not be spread all over the place, oddly enough).

[AndrewForson]

If you think I am bullying you, report me. If not, carry on don't what you're doing.

I think you're trying to bully me. You're just not very good at it. So I am doing something about it -- I'm laughing at it.

[AndrewForson]

Although I share your worry's about the content and the people of Everipedia knows that, I still think Evripedia has a better change to solve these problems at the long run. Because Wikipedia/ WFM is extreem demotivating for content writers in a different way than you think. It is not in that way about the money.

I have decided to become a Evripedia editor two days ago, after long and deep thinking. I don't need a Ferrari, I had ones had a Porche in my life and that was the most terrible experience I ever had about cars. If I get a chocolate bar or a few airmails I am happy. And a few friendly words, and if I am not used as the fox in a crazy fox hunting of wiki idiots it should make me very happy too.

Glad to hear you're optimistic, and equally glad to hear your expectations are not high. It seems that what you're saying is that writing articles for Everipedia is likely to be a more positive experience for writers (whether financially or otherwise) than Wikipedia. Maybe so. But as a project to build an encyclopaedia -- a reliable, authorititative compendium of human knowledge -- that will be useful to the reader, and fit constructively into the already fragile knowledge eco-system: that would need a plan. So it may be a better fiddle than Wikipedia, but will it stop Rome burning?

[CrowsNest]

If you think I am bullying you, report me. If not, carry on don't what you're doing.

I think you're trying to bully me. You're just not very good at it. So I am doing something about it -- I'm laughing at it.

I wanted you to stop telling Paul what to do, and you stopped. I wanted you to make clear to Paul your post was ignorable, and you did. I wanted you to use the PM function if you had any serious complaints to make about anyone's conduct here, and you have not. Whatever you want to call it, however hard you claim to be laughing now, it was undeniably effective. I'd love to be able to laugh at how easy it is to ensure you comply, but I can feel only pity.

[AndrewForson]

If you think I am bullying you, report me. If not, carry on don't what you're doing.

I think you're trying to bully me. You're just not very good at it. So I am doing something about it -- I'm laughing at it.

Ah, I see you're trying to up your game. One standard bullying tactic: reframe the discussion and try to impose your own definitions on words.

I wanted you to stop telling Paul what to do, and you stopped.

No, I suggested ways forward. The clue is in the use of phrased like "please could we". Telling people what to do is characterised by phrases such as "I will not stand for this", "Do not presume to act like", "Use the private channels", "Report me". I have used none of these -- you have used all of them in this thread. Conclusion: untrue, and indeed the direct opposite of the truth.

I wanted you to make clear to Paul your post was ignorable, and you did.

I cannot see anything that I wrote that you could possibly (mis)construe in this way. It seems to be purely an artefact of your imagination. Conclusion: untrue.

I wanted you to use the PM function if you had any serious complaints to make about anyone's conduct here, and you have not

In other words, I did not do what you wanted. And why should I? There is nothing I needed to tell you privately. Conclusion: irrelevant.

Whatever you want to call it, however hard you claim to be laughing now, it was undeniably effective.

Not only deniable, but refutable, and I have refuted it.[/quite]

I'd love to be able to laugh at how easy it is to ensure you comply, but I can feel only pity.

I think this is saying that actually you're better at bullying that I say you are. Were that to be true, and I have shown pretty conclusively that it isn't, would that be something to boast about? Most people would prefer to keep it hidden.

Grade: C+. An attempt to reframe the debate, but let down by saying things that are simply too easy to refute. Should probably consider taking up other pursuits.

[AndrewForson]

Graaf, another point to bear in mind which I forgot to mention earlier. One product of Everipedia's lack of any plan or process to bring on board expertise is that it is open to subversion by unorthodox points of view, especially those which have failed to gain traction at Wikipedia for reasons good or bad. In particular, while by no means an expert in the area myself, I think it likely that Paul Bedson would agree that his views on the archaeology of the Levant are not those currently supported by the academic mainstream. Should EP ever become significant enough for this to become an issue, I fear that the congenial atmosphere among the contributors which you find attractive at present may evaporate quite quickly.

[Graaf Statler]

I think it is more important to educate (young) people what the internet is, and what its limitations are. Pedia's or and blogs don't disappear, so we have to deal with it.
And many times the Wikipedia bias does't make me happy either. With all the influances of people with a certan agenda. And in that way is Everypedia, what a mix is between Facebook and Wikipedia better to explane I suppose. Because the bias on wikipedia is many times the result of people with some interest or activism who troll there vision till they got what they want. And many times these people are only active in the chapters and trying to get in this way influence, often in a dirty way. Or are only active as a kind of corrupt police officer on Wikipedia. And that is impossible in the Everipedia product, because it is commercial. They are simple not rewarded. So, I think it is a better product with better changes.

[CrowsNest]

One standard bullying tactic: reframe the discussion and try to impose your own definitions on words.

Says the guy who is grading my performance in some kind of imagined game. It's pathetic.

There is really no other way to interpret your post, for a variety of reasons, as anything other than a superficially polite attempt to get Paul to shut up, using disingenuous reasoning and implying wider support, where in fact you had none. This tedious sophistry of yours, to try and deny what is obvious for the benefit of some imagined supporters out there, while amusing given the lengths you will go to, really is a waste of your time.

I've told you already, you're a known quantity now. No more good faith to be had here. No assumptions that you simply made a mistake or misspoke. I don't need to up my game, there is no game. I wanted to stop you in your tracks and force a retraction, so as to prevent Paul getting the wrong idea about this forum. And I succeeded. Deny it all you want, that is what happened. From past experience, how long you are going to whine about it, is entirely dependent on my willingness to indulge you.

[AndrewForson]

[...] a superficially polite attempt to get Paul to shut up [...]

For reasons which I expanded on in response to Graaf's polite and collegial request I don't think that Everipedia is a good thing. I do think it would help this board if threads on Everipedia were to be better organised, marshalled into one place, and if Paul were to be less enthusiastic about using this and other sites directed at criticising Wikipedia to promote it without adding to a critical discussion. If you call that an attempt to shut him up, then you are obviously so unused to politeness, superficial or otherwise, that you are unable to distinguish between such important concepts as "less" and "none", for example (we can add this to your other confusions, such as the difference between "deny" and "disprove"). You disagree, for reasons that appear to have more to do with emotion than reason. Unfortunately you simply cannot brook disagreement even over the most trivial matter, and appear to be under the delusion that you have sort of special status in any argument you insert yourself into that allows you to dictate to others what they can and cannot say, and the terms in which they are to say it: indeed, you seem to be under the impression that this special status means that you and you alone determine whether, when and where a discussion begins and ends. That makes you less effective as a critic, seriously diminishes your credibility on this site and has already contributed to your being thrown off two others. Do you not see a pattern emerging here? Suffice it to say: you are no more special than the rest of us. You have as much right to dictate terms, issue orders, mandate alternatives, define terms and lay down the law to me as I do to you: which is to say, none at all.

It seems that you believe that you are in fact a successful bully. Not a thing to be proud of, even if it were true.