Poetlister

[CrowsNest]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 92#p217492

Anyone who's been around Wikipedia for any length of time knows JzG. He's a nuisance but there are worse people.

Trollery, surely? No way in hell has he seen or heard of many worse than JzG, nor seen him do no worse than be a nuisance.

[CrowsNest]

Always two gimps there are, master and slave......

Is Ming the Master or slave......?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 5284#p5284

No matter. Enter the Poetlister.....

It's promptly received a {{Hoax}} template and been put up for deletion. The creator, Inky Scrolls (T-C-L), is trying in vain to get a keep.

To put that in terms that might be useful to readers of a Wikipedia criticism forum, despite this obvious hoax article being tagged as an obvious hoax very swiftly after its creation, the Wikipedia beurocracy is such that all the creator had to do to force them to play along with the game for SEVEN DAYS, was to object to it being swiftly deleted. He doesn't need to give a reason, but whether for the lulz or because he's an idiot, he chose to lie to them. And they did nothing about it.

It's 2018, and Wikipedia is still incapable of acting swiftly and decisively to keep hoax articles out, and ban those that try to get them in despite lacking any guile or skill.

If Wikipediocraccy valued real critics, maybe that message might get out there. But no, they value Ming and Poetlister, so this turd sandwich masquerading as useful analysis, is what readers get instead.

[CrowsNest]

Not that Northern Irish politics bears much resemblance to the Civil Rights movement.

Say what now? The parallels are remarkable. And while it was cast as religious issue, you could no more denounce your religion in the eyes of the state, or the other side, the two being virtually indistinguishable at times, than you could denounce your colour. Bonkers opinion. Discredits the whole forum.

[CrowsNest]

Yes, a good example is the awkwardly named Claude Clopper. He is well known among statisticians for the Clopper-Pearson algorithm, but I know of no source about him that would pass WP:V, so I couldn't write an article about him.

Seems unlikely. The other guy has a Wikipedia article......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Pearson

Clearly, either Poetlister means something else than the literal definition of "well known", or this guy is only known for being the co-creator of an algorithm, and he has fundamentally misunderstood the Wikipedia doctrine about notability not being inherited. Then again, it could be because the guy maybe died as early as the 1930s, so anyone not prepared to do the leg work, would think they could not write an article.

[CrowsNest]

Of course, the ideal would be that civility means the same on Wikipedia as it does in real life.

The Wikipedia civility policy is really no different.......

* Participate in a respectful and considerate way.

* Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.

* Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same.

This simply ignore it. And Wikipediocracy seem to revel in it evidently, usually being in total agreement that Wikipedia's civility requirement is somehow a problem, a barrier to building an encyclopedia. And yet they don't seem to be getting very far without it. They have very few editors, and those who are there, aren't really happy, being kept there through addiction and belief they are serving a higher power, not because it is a nice experience.

Stop your mindless babbling Poetliister, you're only polluting the forum.

[CrowsNest]

It could be argued that if someone has a sock which is editing productively and innocuously, then under WP:IAR it should not be prevented from doing so.

No, it could not. Not even close. Nobody who knows Wikipedia would ever think it could be.

Postmaster is of course, well known as a dirty little sock-master, so his views on what could be argued are quite tainted by his own view on how legitimate such a thing is. Who knows, maybe he is racked with guilt. Or maybe he just hasn't got the backbone to see what he did was against the rules.

Whatever the truth, it's kind of sad that serious Wikipedia critics have to suffer this sort of garbage being said. We do not benefit from having people, be they outsiders or Wikipedians, thinking we are this stupid, or this lacking in moral fibre. Serious critics break their rules because they reject their rules. We know their rules better than they do, IAR included, because we have studied the ways and means the degenerate Wikipedians find to break them, and then justify it to themselves.

[CrowsNest]

Can't decide if this is standard Poetlister level dickishness, or if some of Eric Corbett's stink is rubbing off on him....

I recently commented elsewhere about the tendency of people to invent their own meanings of words. Undoubtedly, hacking implies unauthorised access. You therefore cannot hack the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, except possibly if you are blocked or banned.

Either way, it is my duty to tell Poetlister that hacked can of course also mean inartfully modified. As in, 'Holy shit, did you see how Drmies just hacked that article to bits?'. I only say this because it is a definition that fits well in the media headline usage the good people of Wikipediocracy are assuming was meant in the black/white hat sense.

Anyway, I'm sure we're all glad they're finding something productive to do with their time.

What does Eric Corbett stink of I hear you wonder? Ferret piss, obviously.

[CrowsNest]

Tiresome.

The problem is that to assess whether an academic is important and influential in his or her field, you need to have considerable knowledge of the field yourself.

It can be a bonus, but it is most certainly not a prerequisite. I think Poetlister wants a Wikipedia where subject experts have control over their topic areas. As Wikipedia has proven, that would be beyond stupid. As our fight over explanets and the utility of having James Heilman as a Wikipedian revealed, he'll be clueless as to why that is the case, but not remotely interested in learning why. Dumbass.

[CrowsNest]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 35#p226235

This is pretty worrying. Doc James, whatever his faults, is a qualified medical doctor and has no excuse for not knowing better.

Why are you worried, you mug? Your sustained argument in this thread was that Wikipedia is better off with Doc James than without him.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=8843

The error was introduced to Wikipedia, and persisted for seven years, precisely because of the faults Doc James has. He is sloppy, arrogant and untouchable. The mere fact he has a mediocre background in medicine, doesn't mitigate the likely harm he has caused because those faults are happily ignored by the cult, and pseudo-critics.

If you went looking through his actual edits, you'd find many more errors like this. But you don't, because you're more of a Wikipedia apologist than a critic.

[sashi]

C'mon. It's a throwaway comment. Poetlister limits his engagement to one-liners and digging up articles, some of which are probably not that essential, many of which give a wider view. Not a digger, per se, but an animator... and probably rarely to be taken at face value.

They're pretty adept at sorting threads / generating discussion with very few words.