Wikipedia Sucks!

Midesize Jake wrote:I have no need or desire to insult him. He makes some good points, many of which I agree with, and I actually still sort-of like him in a way... though quite a bit less now of course, after the whole Graaf Statler II fiasco (which I blame mostly on him, for obvious reasons).

I also believe that having an adversarial relationship with other Wikipedia criticism sites is pointless and counterproductive - if someone doesn't think we're extreme enough in our contempt for WP, or that allowing pro-Wikipedia people to participate here is some sort of horrible betrayal, go ahead and start another forum where you can do things differently. But keep your own contempt for us in a private subforum somewhere, and certainly don't put it on your top-line banner. That's basically shooting yourself in the foot because our foot is directly beneath your foot. The moment of pure bliss you get from the one thing is not worth the long-term damage you do to yourself with the other.

And do you know why, Jake? Because you don't let your light shine into into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, no. And because you don't examine the corruption there. That is the fiasco Jake! What do you expect of me, to support the total corrupt structuur of Pedia and your corrupt side? To say, o Ming what is a lier from the first category because it is just some corrupt wiki sysop is a perfect critic? What a great blog post did he write? You, yes you Jake are running a fake side! That is where it is about, Jake, about your corrupt fake site and not even about Crow or me.

You are not only allowing pro-Wikipedia people to participate, no, you are running a pro-wikipedia site in a sneaky way. And a pro-gender desk site, with the framing gender lady, Jake. And that is OK for me, only don't lie you are running a critical site, and there it is about Jake. And you are blaming me because you are a lier Jake? Weird. Just admit you are running a extension of The Village Pump for crying Wikipedians and it is OK for us Jake, so stop your cheap lies.

If Jake has agreed with anything I have said, it is probably because he didn't understand it. It's not a pick n mix, it's package deal. If you agree with anything I say about Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy, then you should agree with everything, because it is all based on the same philosophy and general themes.

The idea that it is in our interest to hide criticism of their efforts, is really laughable. It shows that he really doesn't get it at all. It would be embarrassing in the extreme if anyone ever thought we had a common cause of friendly relations with them.

They're fucking idiots, they don't know shit about Wikipedia criticism and they aren't interested in doing it, and any right minded person can see it. If we weren't calling them out publicly for that obvious failure to meet their so called mission, people might think we were the sort of idiot who can't see it either, and therefore not trust anything we write about Wikipedia, because who respects the analysis of morons?