View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:56 pm




Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
15 rounds of insults, attacking maneuvers, etc. 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1516
Reply with quote
Eric Corbett wrote:
I can say quite categorically though that you'll never see me at sucks.

COWARD


Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 153
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
lol, Tim talks like the usual Tim, repetitively. "WIKI IZ MAGIC yeah it has a lot of problems BUT MAGIC"
And no one else from WO shows up. Knew that would happen.

PS which thread triggered this? Oh, got it:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9830
You have to log in to see it so it's not really "public" anyway. Did Jake move it?


WP powers much of your Google info boxes, your Siri and sundry products, helps turn 1/8th educated college students into 1/5th educated college students, and answers mundane questions and settles bar bets around the world. I trust you'll give me WIKI IZ IMPORTANT.

Is it MAGIC? Uhhh, no. But it is a heavily used and generally well regarded public resource of passable accuracy on most topics.

I'll state that as an axiom.

I'm not quite sure what CN is on about about re: Wikipedia benefiting me personally. Sure Newspapers.com and JSTOR are swell, so I guess I'm cashing in on the gravy train to the tune of about $15 a month — which I suspect those entities DONATE to WP so they're quite possibly not actually spending bucks to deliver said value.

Putting that into perspective: that's a fantastically small percentage of my "information acquisition" budget every month — this month which includes $715 to New York Public Library to microfilm, $225 to Bolerium for a couple pamphlets and a couple books, $125 to some reprint house in India for a little stack of old socialist reprint books, and so on and so forth... We won't even talk about amortizing the hardware... It's safe to say I spend five times as much of my own money in order to contribute crap to WP than they spend on me to help me contribute crap to WP.

Anyway, the choices are either (a) addressing WP's problems; (b) ignoring WP's problems; or (c) shaving one's head and praying for the millennium in which a vengeful neon Jesus comes back to earth to smite Jimmy Wales and his foul project.

I vote for option A. Your mileage may vary.

RfB


Last edited by Carrite on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2764
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
PS which thread triggered this? Oh, got it:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9830
You have to log in to see it so it's not really "public" anyway. Did Jake move it?

Yes, Jake did. And the reason he gave me acces to WO the last time was to put every posting of me in the secret part of Trollocrazy. There troll tricks are always so incredible stupide. He wanted to get me away from here in this way.

Sorry Randy, this was not about you, lets wait for CN his answer, we are in the middle of round two, and I stay out of the discussion between the two of you. Thanks for joining us so far. Bur one advice to Crow, try to focus on that option A.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:30 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1516
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
Is it MAGIC? Uhhh, no. But it is a heavily used and generally well regarded public resource of passable accuracy on most topics.

I'll state that as an axiom.

And I've already said, there is considerable good content there. Mostly written by average people who were snookered by the Wales-Hellmouth and his dedicated gang of usually-incompetent shitbirds. The content writers were usually unconnected to the corrupt inner circle. But how does Joe Blow figure out which is trustworthy content and which is "stepped on"? He can't. Google is making the choice for him (whilst shoveling millions of $$$ at the WMF) and that's not a good thing. Be sure to point that out if you ever waste your time on Wikimedia IRC channels with shitbirds, please.

Thank you, because no one else will say it.

Quote:
Anyway, the choices are either (a) addressing WP's problems; (b) ignoring WP's problems; or (c) shaving one's head and praying for the millennium in which a vengeful neon Jesus comes back to earth to smite Jimmy Wales and his foul project.

Got too many neon Jesuses already--also ineffective. And clearly no one wants to see a book about the problems, because Ed and I tried it. No one wanted to publish it--or even be the agent. Jimbo and Co. got them all doing the chicken.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:21 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 153
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
ericbarbour wrote:
lol, Tim talks like the usual Tim, repetitively. "WIKI IZ MAGIC yeah it has a lot of problems BUT MAGIC"
And no one else from WO shows up. Knew that would happen.

PS which thread triggered this? Oh, got it:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=9830
You have to log in to see it so it's not really "public" anyway. Did Jake move it?


WP powers much of your Google info boxes, your Siri and sundry products, helps turn 1/8th educated college students into 1/5th educated college students, and answers mundane questions and settles bar bets around the world. I trust you'll give me WIKI IZ IMPORTANT.

Is it MAGIC? Uhhh, no. But it is a heavily used and generally well regarded public resource of passable accuracy on most topics.

I'll state that as an axiom.

I'm not quite sure what CN is on about about re: Wikipedia benefiting me personally. Sure Newspapers.com and JSTOR are swell, so I guess I'm cashing in on the gravy train to the tune of about $15 a month — which I suspect those entities DONATE to WP so they're quite possibly not actually spending bucks to deliver said value.

Putting that into perspective: that's a fantastically small percentage of my "information acquisition" budget every month — this month which includes $715 to New York Public Library to microfilm, $225 to Bolerium for a couple pamphlets and a couple books, $125 to some reprint house in India for a little stack of old socialist reprint books, and so on and so forth... We won't even talk about amortizing the hardware... It's safe to say I spend five times as much of my own money in order to contribute crap to WP than they spend on me to help me contribute crap to WP.

Anyway, the choices are either (a) addressing WP's problems; (b) ignoring WP's problems; or (c) shaving one's head and praying for the millennium in which a vengeful neon Jesus comes back to earth to smite Jimmy Wales and his foul project.

I vote for option A. Your mileage may vary.

RfB


Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 153
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
Carrite wrote:
Is it MAGIC? Uhhh, no. But it is a heavily used and generally well regarded public resource of passable accuracy on most topics.

I'll state that as an axiom.

And I've already said, there is considerable good content there. Mostly written by average people who were snookered by the Wales-Hellmouth and his dedicated gang of usually-incompetent shitbirds. The content writers were usually unconnected to the corrupt inner circle. But how does Joe Blow figure out which is trustworthy content and which is "stepped on"? He can't. Google is making the choice for him (whilst shoveling millions of $$$ at the WMF) and that's not a good thing. Be sure to point that out if you ever waste your time on Wikimedia IRC channels with shitbirds, please.

Thank you, because no one else will say it.

Quote:
Anyway, the choices are either (a) addressing WP's problems; (b) ignoring WP's problems; or (c) shaving one's head and praying for the millennium in which a vengeful neon Jesus comes back to earth to smite Jimmy Wales and his foul project.

Got too many neon Jesuses already--also ineffective. And clearly no one wants to see a book about the problems, because Ed and I tried it. No one wanted to publish it--or even be the agent. Jimbo and Co. got them all doing the chicken.


In this world of websites, electronic book readers, and small run self-publishing, there are an array of options for getting your research into the world. I remain extremely surprised that there wasn't a mainstream publisher willing to run with a run with a Wikipedia exposé, WP being a more or less universally recognized internet entity — but neither should that be the end of the question.

I've never been on Wikipedia IRC, but I don't doubt that it is a mechanism with which the game-players communicate with one another. Is it as potent a tool as it was five or ten years ago? That I rather doubt, but I don't have any evidence one way or the other. The history of Wikipedia IRC would be interesting to learn.

Who contributes the content? There are doubtlessly some "drive-bys" that do good work, but most of it is done by content writers who do their thing more or less in isolation, nose to the grindstone, never leaving a trace of their existence on the drama boards. I know these people exist because I bump into them all the time.

There are also gamesters who are only there for the dramahz and to tendentiously manipulate the content of controversial articles. I'll freely admit that there are swaths of Wikipedia that are untrustworthy politicized crap. And you are right, there are no obvious markers on such fare and no easy way for the casual WP user to know when they are venturing from the banks to the ice to the thin ice in the middle of the river. The solution, of course, is to get rid of the game-players, but with the current idiotic "anyone can edit without registration" scheme, it is all but impossible to do anything lasting to get these people out of the way for good.

I don't really understand the hostility of a couple people to WPO and its regulars. Sure, it's no Wikipedia Review Original Recipe — this site is MUCH closer to that in attitude and approach. That's fine even if it's not my own personal cup of tea. But criticism of the critics doesn't strike me as a productive venture unless one only seeks raw entertainment. The real problems to be exposed and addressed lie in another direction.

tim


Last edited by Carrite on Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:14 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3599
Reply with quote
Yeah, they only want the public forum to be used for serious Wikipedia criticism. :lol:

It might happen too, if they a) find some members who are serious critics, and b) hire some moderators to clear out the daily sludge of off topic shite, which is at least half of their current churn, and affects seemingly every single thread.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2764
Reply with quote
Randy from Boise wrote:

I'm not fighting anybody. I think CN needs to attenuate the tone a little bit, but that board is a perfect foil for him and that he's a good researcher and is regularly a fun read.

I agree with the observation that EB should go the DIY route with his book. He's already nearly five years late doing that, I feel.

tim

P.S. I wish that my posts there didn't vanish to moderation for review before becoming visible. But: their house, their system.


Dysklyve wrote:
You need a minimum number of posts before the board will stop moderating you, I can't remember the exact number you need though.

Must be. Because i don't thing one of us want to mute Tim. Tim s a very intelligent and good and real critic. We don't agree at some point, but that doesn't matter,
Because it makes a discussion so much more interesting in this way without Jakes muting and manipulation.

Tim must feel free to say what he want without any restriction. He defend his option A, Crow and I have a other opinion, so what is the problem?
We just don't agree, that is all. Why muting Tim, why not letting Tim say his opinion, let him defend his vision? Tim is free here to say what he wants. Because that is freedom of speech. the only thing we want here is a bit of respect for each other, and that is all.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:06 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3599
Reply with quote
We've had this issue before. "Wikipedia is a heavily used and generally well regarded public resource of passable accuracy on most topics." is not an axiom. It is your belief, one you have not substantiated.

Wikipedia is heavily used because there is no alternative resource with the same amount of information. It is essentially a monopoly provider in its own segment, which it created. That people use it is merely proof of its monopoly status. No implication of accuracy or regard is possible beyond the fact people likely attach no expectations on something that is free.

Would Wikipedia survive the transition to a subscriber only model? No. Only in their wildest dreams would 1 in a 100 visitors choose to subscribe, yet that is the expectation of resources that are well regarded. It is incredibly unlikely that Wikipedia is used more than accurate alternatives in each sector, where accuracy is a customer expectation. And it is a simple task to prove much of the wider public doesn't have the slightest clue what Wikipedia even is, so any thought it is accurate, is likely a misconception. Most don't even know of the disclaimer, much less things like citogenisis.

Quote:
I'm not quite sure what CN is on about about re: Wikipedia benefiting me personally.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 4128#p4128
Quote:
It's safe to say I spend five times as much of my own money in order to contribute crap to WP than they spend on me to help me contribute crap to WP.
Why would they pay you anything? Specifically you. If the WMF were to start paying editors, surely the ones who have made sure that 0.1% of Wikipedia meets the FA standard would be first in line? Any other measure of quality, is surely heretical.....
Quote:
Anyway, the choices are either (a) addressing WP's problems; (b) ignoring WP's problems; or (c) shaving one's head and praying for the millennium in which a vengeful neon Jesus comes back to earth to smite Jimmy Wales and his foul project.

I vote for option A.
Yes, but what are you actually doing to address those problems? (don't make me ask for a third time.....)


Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 153
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Yeah, they only want the public forum to be used for serious Wikipedia criticism. :lol:

It might happen too, if they a) find some members who are serious critics, and b) hire some moderators to clear out the daily sludge of off topic shite, which is at least half of their current churn, and affects seemingly every single thread.


So what exactly is the matter with bullshitting about other things? The number of ultra-intense 24/7 Wikipedia critics in this world is about 3. Plus or minus one. Do you really think that a constituency that large represents critical mass for a movement?

For criticism to have effect, critical commentary has to be read by people who are in a place to actually make the change happen. Basically the dreaded Wikipedians have to read it, the case has to be made, and they have to be motivated to do something about the criticisms, one by one. Treating criticism as a form of "I was a punk before you were a punk and you are a faker" fanaticism is ultimately akin to pitching a tent in the wilderness and eating s'mores with two or three close friends...

The worst decision the WPO administration did was to shut down the Trump Sucks thread. That contributed mightily to the loss of Vigilant, I think, and that was an enormous hit to the tone and content of the site. But he ain't dead yet, nor is the site. Time will pass and we shall see.

tim


Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:43 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.