Wikipedia "Through the Looking Glass" in the aftermath of Twitter Files AfD

[Ognistysztorm]

As we all know by now, the Twitter Files AfD had resulted in unprecedented interests so far on Wikipedia's dark crevices and power plays.

I heard that Mr. Barbour has co-authored a "Through the Looking Glass" book with Larry Sanger and for unknown reasons remain unpublished. Wouldn't it be the best time ever for that to be released?

[ericbarbour]

I heard that Mr. Barbour has co-authored a "Through the Looking Glass" book with Larry Sanger and for unknown reasons remain unpublished. Wouldn't it be the best time ever for that to be released?

It was NOT "co-authored with Larry Sanger". The co-author is Edward Buckner. Sanger did encourage us to get it into print.

And as I've said before, repeated attempts to interest book publishers and literary agents in the book have failed. They seem quite afraid of the Wikipedia cult and the cult of Jimbo. Absurd as it sounds, he still has some sway in the corridors of power. It helps explain why he moved to the UK and married a speechwriter for Tony Blair--he's drilled his way into the Labourite scene. And as you probably know, it's easier to claim "libel" under UK law than in the US.

There is a chunk of great irony for you. Wales and his buttlicks built Wikipedia on the backs on American law, specifically the First Amendment, Section 230, and US law governing the Internet and nonprofit organizations. But he faced serious challenges, and his solution was to run off to Jollie Olde England, where people are tossed into jail occasionally because they said something that OFFENDED some massive twit with political power. The act of a coward and a weasel.

Unless you can find a serious book publisher with the balls to embarrass Wales and his slimy little friends, spare me the demands.

[Ognistysztorm]

I heard that Mr. Barbour has co-authored a "Through the Looking Glass" book with Larry Sanger and for unknown reasons remain unpublished. Wouldn't it be the best time ever for that to be released?

It was NOT "co-authored with Larry Sanger". The co-author is Edward Buckner. Sanger did encourage us to get it into print.

And as I've said before, repeated attempts to interest book publishers and literary agents in the book have failed. They seem quite afraid of the Wikipedia cult and the cult of Jimbo. Absurd as it sounds, he still has some sway in the corridors of power. It helps explain why he moved to the UK and married a speechwriter for Tony Blair--he's drilled his way into the Labourite scene. And as you probably know, it's easier to claim "libel" under UK law than in the US.

There is a chunk of great irony for you. Wales and his buttlicks built Wikipedia on the backs on American law, specifically the First Amendment, Section 230, and US law governing the Internet and nonprofit organizations. But he faced serious challenges, and his solution was to run off to Jollie Olde England, where people are tossed into jail occasionally because they said something that OFFENDED some massive twit with political power. The act of a coward and a weasel.

Unless you can find a serious book publisher with the balls to embarrass Wales and his slimy little friends, spare me the demands.

Until now, when Elon Musk seems unfazed by EU threats to block the recently-acquired Twitter.

[wexter]

Unless you can find a serious book publisher with the balls to embarrass Wales and his slimy little friends, spare me the demands.

Comedy.. titillation... and dark humor - is the only way to hit Wikipedia where it hurts (and even then they will be teflon).

[Strelnikov]

As my unofficial motto goes, Shit Falls From The Sky.

[oranges33]

I heard that Mr. Barbour has co-authored a "Through the Looking Glass" book with Larry Sanger and for unknown reasons remain unpublished. Wouldn't it be the best time ever for that to be released?

It was NOT "co-authored with Larry Sanger". The co-author is Edward Buckner. Sanger did encourage us to get it into print.

And as I've said before, repeated attempts to interest book publishers and literary agents in the book have failed. They seem quite afraid of the Wikipedia cult and the cult of Jimbo. Absurd as it sounds, he still has some sway in the corridors of power. It helps explain why he moved to the UK and married a speechwriter for Tony Blair--he's drilled his way into the Labourite scene. And as you probably know, it's easier to claim "libel" under UK law than in the US.

There is a chunk of great irony for you. Wales and his buttlicks built Wikipedia on the backs on American law, specifically the First Amendment, Section 230, and US law governing the Internet and nonprofit organizations. But he faced serious challenges, and his solution was to run off to Jollie Olde England, where people are tossed into jail occasionally because they said something that OFFENDED some massive twit with political power. The act of a coward and a weasel.

Unless you can find a serious book publisher with the balls to embarrass Wales and his slimy little friends, spare me the demands.

If it's good, and it probably is, what's the need for a publisher. Could just invest a few hundred dollars in limited edition print editions, and put the rest up in a tarball on random sites like it's some secret thing people need to find to discover. This could generate intrigue as well

wikipedia-sucks.tar.gz

[Ognistysztorm]

I heard that Mr. Barbour has co-authored a "Through the Looking Glass" book with Larry Sanger and for unknown reasons remain unpublished. Wouldn't it be the best time ever for that to be released?

It was NOT "co-authored with Larry Sanger". The co-author is Edward Buckner. Sanger did encourage us to get it into print.

And as I've said before, repeated attempts to interest book publishers and literary agents in the book have failed. They seem quite afraid of the Wikipedia cult and the cult of Jimbo. Absurd as it sounds, he still has some sway in the corridors of power. It helps explain why he moved to the UK and married a speechwriter for Tony Blair--he's drilled his way into the Labourite scene. And as you probably know, it's easier to claim "libel" under UK law than in the US.

There is a chunk of great irony for you. Wales and his buttlicks built Wikipedia on the backs on American law, specifically the First Amendment, Section 230, and US law governing the Internet and nonprofit organizations. But he faced serious challenges, and his solution was to run off to Jollie Olde England, where people are tossed into jail occasionally because they said something that OFFENDED some massive twit with political power. The act of a coward and a weasel.

Unless you can find a serious book publisher with the balls to embarrass Wales and his slimy little friends, spare me the demands.

If it's good, and it probably is, what's the need for a publisher. Could just invest a few hundred dollars in limited edition print editions, and put the rest up in a tarball on random sites like it's some secret thing people need to find to discover. This could generate intrigue as well

wikipedia-sucks.tar.gz

Can't agree more. He should invite Bari Weiss for that too.

[ericbarbour]

Could just invest a few hundred dollars in limited edition print editions

Could, but it's not happening. Look at the reception to Cole's self-published book We'll Tell You What To Think.

https://www.amazon.com/Well-Tell-You-Wh ... B096TQ6W69

There WAS no "reception". Because he self-published, and it was an "unpopular" subject, mainstream book reviewers totally ignored it. TOTALLY. I dare you to find me ONE review of that book in a major publication.

[Ognistysztorm]

Elon dissed Wikipedia again so you can release a partial version to Bari Weiss or to the net and generate public anticipation?

[oranges33]

Could just invest a few hundred dollars in limited edition print editions

Could, but it's not happening. Look at the reception to Cole's self-published book We'll Tell You What To Think.

https://www.amazon.com/Well-Tell-You-Wh ... B096TQ6W69

There WAS no "reception". Because he self-published, and it was an "unpopular" subject, mainstream book reviewers totally ignored it. TOTALLY. I dare you to find me ONE review of that book in a major publication.

One thing is his synopsis isn't that compelling, it just accuses modern Wikipedians active on politics articles of being imperialist neoliberals, which isn't that revelatory. That synopsis also only attracts specific political people who for some reason may not have noticed political bias on the site.

Would be more interesting imho if he drilled down on systemic head-staff misconduct. Exploring the concept of systemic citogenensis in an era of disintegration of journalistic standards, less than 20% public trust in modern journalism, yellow journalism, outrage farming, and clickbait prolifieration. Also, specific examples of administrator collusion, and more stuff that rids the any further delusion of staff competency at WP

There's a few large questions that really need to be addressed to

One is, what should be done about early-2000s websites like WP and Twitter which fraudulently claim to be public utilities, but then pull a bait and switch. Ie they are not bound by law to be "inclusive" or "fair", to law abiding citizens, so they don't end up being so. Should such services be nationalized, and if not how can their bait and switch be adressed legislatively?

Another is addressing the notion of Wikipedia being "more accurate than britannica and other legacy encyclopedias according to x/y study etc". I've heard that so much in the media but am very skeptical of that claim. A lot of people just took it as fact though.

Explorations of what notability actually means, and who should actually be the guardians of it. Exploring the idea of Wikipedia actually being a repsitory of all human knowledge. Should WP be so inclusive as to include literally everything including records of people's toilet habits. Delitionists commonly offer the toilet example as something too crazy to accept. Would be interesting to hear an impassioned defense of wanting even that included.

Another interesting topic is the fake idea of IP-based digital democracy, which wikipedia doesn't claim to be, but tries to be regardless. Also drilling down and exploring the lie of "consensus based decision making on controversial WIkipedia articles". Deep dives into what the word "consensus" actually means, and how wikipedia does not work that way on controversial articles. Dives into how decisions are actually made, and without being partisan ie hyperfocusing on "good"/"bad" politics.