[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4793: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3891)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4795: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3891)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4796: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3891)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4797: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3891)
Wikipedia Sucks! - View topic - 15 rounds of insults, attacking maneuvers, etc.
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:35 pm




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

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 333
Reply with quote


Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4452
Reply with quote


Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 333
Reply with quote


Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:33 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4452
Reply with quote


Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3711
Reply with quote

_________________
. (In Dutch) of kom eens .
En kijk eens hier,

.
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 333
Reply with quote


Last edited by Carrite on Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:07 am, edited 4 times in total.



Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:37 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3711
Reply with quote

_________________
. (In Dutch) of kom eens .
En kijk eens hier,

.
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4452
Reply with quote
What have I got wrong about your motivation Tim? You admitted it yourself, you are doing it to reach more people, on the apparent basis you believe you are an expert. The only hard data you have, is how many people read your articles. Taking Severi Alanne as a logical starting point, it averages 1 view per day. So it already looks like your claim of thousands of people a month seeking out your content, is dubious.

As for why they read it, have you any reason to believe, or indeed any evidence, that they come away from it knowing more than they did? That they were so blown away by it, they would happily consider you an expert? The Wikipedians got rid of the article feedback tool for a reason. Readers generally think Wikipedia is shit, and your articles were likely no exception. The Wikipedians tired of all the criticism and suggestions for improvement, so they blocked it out and just carried on doing what they think is the priority. As they always have done.

There's a reason you don't give a shit about Wikipedia's own quality metrics, and it is ironic that it is this very narcissism you spoke of. You've got an absolute certainty you're the only person on Wikipedia with the most knowledge of your subjects, and you assume there's nothing anyone else other editors could teach you, not on the subject matter or anything else that is relevant to Wikipedia publishing. Sadly, it is likely true, since I imagine none of the authors of your books can stand their environment, put up with the bullshit, accept the propaganda.

This is why you talk of the practical way Wikipedia is written, as if it was the actual way it is meant to be written. It is your truth. Andreas didn't say anything on that score that I didn't know already, and have written about extensively in various critic fora, but I would disagree with him implying this results in "excellent articles" (and he probably didn't want to imply that anyway, this is likely the result of your selective quoting).

It belies an arrogance of your own that you think I somehow didn't know what Andreas had said. You imply I am dumb, while clearly not having the first clue as to what I have written about on critic fora. I'm not so dumb I didn't immediately spot he said "or a small team". Have you ever worked in a small team to write a Wikipedia article? I'm thinking no. It doesn't fit your motivation.

And focussing only on that quote, while individual Featured Articles are of course not crowdsourced in the sense of more is better (some is better than one, but yes, there is a practical upper limit), the foundational theory of Wikipedia as a whole, is that it only succeeds if there is a buy in from millions of people, who join as editors. That clearly didn't happen. That is why it is so shit. A million people fact checking one unverified statement a day, would fix one of Wikipedia's most obvious problems in short order.

People like you, who pretend like this is someone else's job, are showing they have absolutely no belief in the foundational ethos of Wikipedia. Which is crowdsourcing toward a common goal. Your attitude that your own personal turf is Ok because you're an expert and nobody else needs to worry themselves with checking your work, that the GA/FA system is meaningless rubbish, blah, blah, is the very antithesis of Wikipedia.

All you are there to do, is steal server space and attract a wider audience. Wikipedia is not a webhost, remember? Kindly dispute this with something concrete, something you can actually point to as an example of you being a selfless believer.....because these continuing blind assertions to the contrary, are unconvincing to say the least.

I know what I'm talking about, and that is chiefly what differentiates serious critics from pseudo-critics. We care about being seen to be wrong, because that would impede our effectiveness. You don't. I can of course furnish you with plenty of proof Jimmy envisioned Wikipedia as a professional environment. Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are on the same page, they both see the sort of dogshit that now passes for good behaviour on Wikipedia, accepted and indeed approved of by people like you, and they find it abhorrent. You are not their idea of a Wikipedian. Like the ferret fucker, you look on that with pride. Bizarre.

Larry chose to fix it by creating a better Wikipedia. Jimmy chose to stay the course, in the vain hope Wikipedia can be fixed. You don't need to be a genius to understand why each took the decision they did, nor to understand why both were idiots for thinking they could succeed. Note that Jimmy is not above creating new projects where there is no point trying to fix the broken WMF offering, WikiTribune proves that. It looks like it will fail for the same reason Citizendium failed - you cannot do anything better than Wikipedia, while Wikipedia still exists, monopolizing the market sector.

Being shit but free and popular, to make people think they are indispensable based on a tissue of lies and mythology spread by the very people who have the most to gain by Wikipedia existing forever, people like you, is Wikipedia's truth. It is a cult. Self-preservation for the benefit of the insiders to the detriment of everyone else, even low ranked members (motivating them to give more), is exactly what defines a cult. They literally said in their strategy, their goal is to be ubiquitous. The nominal goal of being accurate, of course being long forgotten.

Your theories of the blameless Wikipedia, just another website, blah blah, are or course just so much bunk. You might as well be arguing Amazon and Facebook had no effect on retail or newspapers. They take their lumps for the mistakes they made in how they transitioned us all to a world of digital commerce and news transmission, yet Wikipedia is always held blameless by the true believers for their clear deleterious effect on how people look at reference works. There are other superior free digital encyclopedias, but they might as well not exist because of Wikipedia's monopoly. It is to blame. You are to blame.

The very idea people donate to it in full knowledge of what it is and how it works, is frankly laughable. That is some Grade A cult mythology right there. Has there been any correlation at all between how much money the WMF has been able to con from people, in particular readers, and any metric at all of its "generally acceptable quality and accuracy for most topics."? You are talking out of your backside, and you know it. Or maybe you don't.

They are creating an endowment so Wikipedia can be self-sustaining precisely because they know fine well there is a very real risk the individual donors at least will eventually wake up to the scam. This is also why they are now shaking down Amazon and the like, on the laughable basis the product has any market value at all. A risky strategy. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to be forcing corporations to start doing sums about exacty what it is they are paying for.

NOTHING you do shows you really care about the wider readership. Nothing. Just like everybody in the movement, corporate or volunteer, although the latter make it far more obvious they could give less of a crap about the mission. What are these "muted or partial or focused criticism"s you supposedly do? I tire of asking for examples.

And given the thrust of your post, you damn well better give an example of a criticism that actually worked. And let's not even go down the road of you criticising me for lacking humility, you would lose that comparison badly. You are a hugely arrogant person, that comes through countless times. You are humble when seen alongside the likes of Drmies, but not when seen alongside baseline humans.

On a final note, don't say stuff like "I care about money like you care about American football." This forum isn't Wikipeidocracy, we don't feel the need to engage in the sort of mindless chit chat about our personal lives that you people do. But if we did, maybe you'd be surprised at my knowledge of all sorts of things. Poetlister, Casliber, the ferret fucker and countless others in the pseudo-critic camp, they've all made laughable statements about what I supposedly know nothing about, claims that I could easily disprove if I was minded to share details of my education and career. Naturally, I am not.

And this reluctance to tie my real life to my criticism of course limits the outlets for my criticism. But you knew that anyway, didn't you? Pseudo critics rail against the things they already know to be false or misrepresented, to make up for the fact they can't address the actual points being made, which is another differentiating aspect to serious critics.

I will repeat, because you seem determined to ignore it, NOTHING I write is for the benefit of Wikipedians, I don't expect or assume it makes a blind bit of difference to what they think or do. Nor am I interested in building a movement. There are countless examples of corporate behemoths being severely hampered by individuals, exposing issues that they can't or won't fix, but manifestly harm citizens. The conditions are out there.

Your chief protection for your bankrupt business model, Section 230, is already being examined in the countries where legislatures do have some level of ethical concern on behalf of their citizens. Your confidence is misplaced, you could barely muster an effective defence against Article 10/13, and that was cast as an existential threat. When push comes to shove, the March To Save Wikipedia (against sensible laws) will not trouble any Traffic Division in any country. If Wikipedia is killed as part of the process of improving the public access to reliable information, who will care, really? It seems clear you will only care if you are personally affected.

You bizarrely find reassurance in our Alexa ranking, but this merely shows you don't have the first clue what the threat it. This is asymmetric warfare. We're not hoping to snare random readers. Google is our friend, we appear prominently on all relevant searches. And where we don't, we are mentioned in all the other sites performing this niche activity. We even get mentioned on Wikipedia, in ways that make it clear to the curious that it is us, not Wikipediocracy, are the people who pose a threat, because we know the truth.

Thanks in no small part to me, writing stuff people want to quote or host, or that Wikipediots are absolutely terrified of. Because it is serious, truthful, criticism. Delivered in a manner/tone that befits the threat. By contrast, your pesudo-criticism seems to only have two markets - Wikipedia and Wikipedocracy. And you are small fish on both platforms, dominated on both by even bigger believers who are even more deluded and/or minded to deceive the public for their own ends.

You claim common cause with Ming at your peril. He'll be prioritised by Wikipediocracy's inner circle over you, all day, every day. You will accept that, or you will be banned. Just like on Wikipedia. You're welcome to post here when that time comes, but your pseudo-criticism won't go unchallenged.


Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 333
Reply with quote


Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4452
Reply with quote
Any spectators will have no trouble identifying who is ignoring what. But if you want to focus on this one issue, let's do so. I already told you why our Alexa ranking doesn't matter. I already told you quite a bit about who I am writing for, and how they can bring down Wikipedia. If you want more details of our strategy, as some kind of replacement for any kind of answer to the questions about your views and existence, I can of course provide them. Why? Because your hopes that I am a madman flailing in the dark with no hope of success, are sadly just hopes. Just like you hope Wikipedia readers think you are an expert.

Firstly, detailed documentation of the shitty and even psychotic nature of the volunteers, ensures less people are minded to join that community, much less fund it. On that score, we appear to be having an effect. Secondly, by documenting the unchanging if not worsening nature of the community, we will accelerate the departure of the few volunteers who do know how to conduct themselves and did believe in the founding ideals of Wikipedia. Again, we appear to be succeeding.

Outside this strategy of depriving you of your lifeblood, the main threats to Wikipedia are of course, legislation to bring some accountability to what you do, and litigation to ensure you don't feel so free to do what you do. Legislation is already happening, what you fuckers do and how it effects innocent people is being discussed in detail in parliaments across Europe. Our role in that is exposing the ways the WMF and the Wikipedians deceive outsiders as to their true nature. We appear to be succeeding in that too, there was a time when your most obvious lies were believed by outsiders. They are learning.

And it must be us who are informing people, because you jokers at Wikipediocracy certainly do not discuss some of these things at all, and those you do are framed as if Wikipedia is the victim. Basically, we counter your propaganda, bust your myths, tell your truth. Inevitably then, as powerful individual's eyes are opened, as Wikipedia keeps adding itself as a party to all sorts of campaigns, claiming in every single case it is about our human rights to freely consume an amateur encyclopedia, significant litigation will happen by way of retribution, if it isn't in the works already. Strategies have been developed, weaknesses have been identified. Some details are necessarily kept under wraps, but there's plenty on here out in the open to convince you this is happening.

The rest of what we do can broadly be classified as public education, but as said, we don't waste our time on those who don't want to be educated, they're no use to us, we are not building a mass movement. This is perhaps the easiest part of our role, given how miserable the failures of Wikipedia's assorted initiatives really are. Fixed the gender gap yet? Fixed the software yet? Fixed the culture yet? Fixed the ENCYCLOPEDIA yet? No. No. No. No. Your worse aspects, like the closed, vicious and paranoid nature of the community, just keep getting worse. 'Deal with it', or this pathetic plea for more time, is and remains, your only reply. Busted.

People looking for details of how Wikipedia really works, and why it can't be fixed, will be well served by this website. Wikipediocracy, not so much.


Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:35 am
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.