Eric maded a thread!
As befits his stature as a collosus of philosophy, it addresses the Big Picture. Namely, why the fuck are are you critics so worked up? What's your deal?
There was a time when I believed that Wikipedia was a worthwhile endeavour, but it has so many problems that that wouldn't be my view today. Nevertheless I find that I really don't care much whether it lives or dies, although I'm aware that others are happy to do whatever they can to hasten its demise.
So I'm wondering whether Wikipedia generates such strong feelings among some people because of its style of governance rather than what it actually is - a large repository of largely unreliable information. Is it because editors are treated as if they're untrustworthy children allowed only reluctantly to carry out certain unglamorous tasks such as writing articles, or is it deeper than that? Is it perhaps to do with the way in which former cult members are shunned?
Or perhaps there's another reason altogether. Different people will claim to have different motivations, but there must surely be some unifying theme.
Firstly, let's deal with the elephant in the room. Quite a few people, myself included, get worked up over Wikipedia partly because of enduring presence of people like Eric. The toxic scum. The unblockables. The exact people who should not be encountered in the so called Wikipedia community, indeed who should be left in no doubt they are not welcome, if it worked as advertised. It does not work. So much so, what Eric calls my obsession, has lasted for years. I really did want him to be dead as was rumoured, just so I didn't have to keep exposing his sham existence. It's tiring work. Tedious work. But sadly necessary work.
Now, to the analysis bus
There was a time when I believed that Wikipedia was a worthwhile endeavour, but it has so many problems that that wouldn't be my view today.
Took you long enough, eh? Sadly, it wasn't because he's a slow learner, and arguably not even because he was addicted. He's just that kind of person. Stubborn. Egotistical. Delusional. Selfish.
Nevertheless I find that I really don't care much whether it lives or dies,
Bullshit. For a start, he clearly wants Jimmy to come to serious harm. But that alone doesn't adequately explain 300 posts in 50 days to Wikipediocracy. Nobody is ever that bored.
although I'm aware that others are happy to do whatever they can to hasten its demise.
Not sure how he got that impression from Wikipediocracy, they're more of the belief that the minor reform here, a personnel change there, and Wikipedia will be fixed. For true faith HTD, you gotta go elsewhere. Wait, you don't think he secretly reads our forum without telling us? *swoon*
So I'm wondering whether Wikipedia generates such strong feelings among some people because of its style of governance rather than what it actually is - a large repository of largely unreliable information.
Why can't it be both? And surely, the former is at least partly responsible for the latter? And let's have it right. Per their own disclaimer, 100% of Wikipedia is to be treated as if it is unreliable information.
Is it because editors are treated as if they're untrustworthy children allowed only reluctantly to carry out certain unglamorous tasks such as writing articles, or is it deeper than that?
Well, it took a while, but we are finally onto the real reason Eric created the thread. Sympathy. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like one. If you want to be trusted, stop lying.
Is it perhaps to do with the way in which former cult members are shunned?
What a surprise. The guy who spent a decade as a Wikipedian, is still more than happy to trot out the cult line - Critics? What critics? They're all just embittered former editors! It's rather laughable if Eric is implying here that he is a shunned former cult member. And if he isn't, he should be more diplomatic, and not rub everyone else's nose in the fact he left of his own accord.
Or perhaps there's another reason altogether.
Come off it Eric. You're not the kind of guy who has an open mind, you already have what you think is the answer, just drop the charade this thread was a solicitation of alternative views.
Different people will claim to have different motivations, but there must surely be some unifying theme.
Based on what? Proper critics already know people hate Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. You're not so dumb you haven't figured that out already. Granted, your face doesn't really fit at Wikipediocracy if you have certain views, but their imposition of a narrative others must follow or be ritually humiliated, is why we are now graced with multiple different critic sites.
Hope this helps everybody caught up in this enduring farce that Eric is somehow now a Wikipedia critic, rather than the guy he has always been, just no longer editing Wikipedia (or so the proven sock-master claims anyway).