How to "destroy" Wikipedia

[Graaf Statler]

Idea #2 - Make Wikipedia illegal.
If you can't destroy it yourself, get the Government to do it! All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law! This is actually already happening to some extent, so should be easy. This requires four major key elements, firstly make CC licences illegal so the content model fails. Step two, make IP's personal information so IP editing becomes difficult and a massive attribution problem is created with past edits. Step three, introduce a link tax so Wikipedia has to pay for references. And finally, make Wikipedia responsible for all copyvios it hosts, and impose a massive fine on any violations.

However, as much as this is happening to some extent already, laws take a really long time to pass. This would take forever.

A few remaks. You mention the Dutch copyright law, but much more important are the French and German copyright laws what are about the same. And in Belgium too, what even has a strikter copyright law, but both Holland and Belgium are just a province of there powerful neighbours. And the way the CC license often is used is already illegal, you can only use it for work created by yourself.
And I didn't put the attention on this copyright problem, because who am I, I was only a editor on the micro project Wikiquote.
Romaine, Dimi, and friends did that with there "Brussels advocating Group" and that SanFanBan! They went to the Europarlement with there crazy project, not I. They made me a wiki rock star, not I! There was not any reason for any ban!

So, they have destroyed Wikipedia themself. I did nothing, really nothing. I never did anything, anything wrong, and basically I am extremely shy, I even didn't went to the press with this golden story.
But it should be great a headline!


Famous Dutch-American wikipedia professor trollt the son of the founder of the English institute in Utrecht out with the help of WMF.

And than the whole story, with Moira-NL troll bot, Ymnes, Wikischim, Edo's mail, Elly on WMC2017, Oscar van Dillen the great famous composer, Jehova's, red panty's, fat boy James Alexander, Global heater Maher, etc, etc. With elements as Tolkien and the holocaust.
It would be the story of the year!
But I prefer the twilight of Sucks and Eerbeek blog and playing with my toy train. I had never, never the intention to destroy wikipedia, altough it would be extreem easy for me and still is. Wikipedia is out of my field of interest, believe me or not. I don't want to return, I only wanted to know what happend, that's all.

[Graaf Statler]

Lucky I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this, I would have made a mess...



Dyksleever Wrote:
All that required is to take extreem danger Dutch law and make it European law, then make it world law!




Give my regards to Sancho.

Thanks Timmy. But still you didn't answer my question, how to solve this problem. Because, the jurisdiction of the American legal system stop at it's borders, isn't it? And The Netherlands is not the only European country with this strict copyright regulation. And of course you can think America is the centre of the universum, but that is not true, Timmy.
Because illegal is illegal Timmy, copyright infringement can even be a crime in Europe.

And what if someone is re-using something and it appears to be copyvio or child porn in Europe? What has he to say? Timmy and Jake said it was OK? Will it help him in court? Will WMF help him? What do you think yourself Tim? And what about the risk for European users, Tim?

Are you and Jake just playing the fool or are the two of you really that stupide? Because that is what I am wondering.

[Dysklyver]

A few remarks. You mention the Dutch copyright law, but much more important are the French and German copyright laws what are about the same. And in Belgium too, what even has a stricter copyright law, but both Holland and Belgium are just a province of their powerful neighbours.

This is true, indeed more of Europe already has very similar laws, all of which aguble already put Wikipedia on very dodgy ground. But by focusing on Dutch law and deliberately misspelling some words, I remind everyone of what you already said and don't have to repeat it all.

The entire creative commons, with CC-BY, and CC-0 and all its licenses is an American legal construct, based on American law, and only tested in the US and UK, both of which use the same common-law system. It is absurd to expect the CC system to be valid in Europe with its civil-law system, the code Napoleon is very different to the basis of American jurisprudence.

But then the entire 'How to "destroy" Wikipedia' post is deliberately slightly silly, more to show recent events in context to how difficult it is to kill Wikipedia prematurely than looking seriously at how it is slowly dying, losing contributors, having its legal premise eroded away by increased law enforcement and being superseded by better technology.

As an example, Google today released a software program that will kill all minor Wikipedias. It is a AI neural translation program, vastly better than anything before, and it has been tasked to translate the English Wikipedia into all other languages, and host the result on Google, owned by Google, translation copyright by Google, nothing to do with Wikipedia anymore, and no-one can edit it.

You could say that Google "made" Wikipedia because it suited their commercial interests, but Google will happily kill it to increase their profits.

[Graaf Statler]

You could say that Google "made" Wikipedia because it suited their commercial interests, but Google will happily kill it to increase their profits.

True. And Google will improve it and make it usable in the EU the coming years because that guys are not crazy. for sure they will filter every copyvio out and find better sources. I have no illusions, they are not going to risk a huge fine for the benefit of the free source mouvement.

And about that CC license, I remember there have been a commission in Holland with professors law and they have created that page how to make the CC licence usable in our system and for two days I got the idea to have a look there. And there is written what I claim from 2012 on. BUT IF ROMAINE OPENS HIS MOUTH NOBODY HEARS YOU ANYMORE!!!!! YOU ONLY HEAR ROMAINE!!!! And they where with a sponsored group, the chapter and arbcom, you could not win.

And it is true, I am a bit shy and I made myself smaller and smaller, just like a wife what is beaten. At the end I was so small, there was nothing left of me. But they didn't stop beating, till WMF on. They are such a dirty bastards!

[CrowsNest]

Is there a need to destroy Wikipedia physically? How about a massive campaign to discredit Wikipedia so much that nobody would use it?

Great idea. Any chance you might actually begin to do this?

Nobody who thinks Doc James adds value to Wikipedia, or any of the other dumb shit this fanboy has said to defend or excuse Wikipedia and the Wikipedians over the years, is remotely what someone trying to discredit Wikipedia would say.

You need to erode away the people's trust in the project, you need to erode away the editors desire to edit and the admins ability to due what they do. The current climate of admin abuse and edit mistreatment and disenchantment on the rise, this one is already well under way as we have seen from the decline's of editors, readers and admins.

Oh fuck off. As the Wikipedians Jake lets hang out in his forum have shown repeatedly, almost daily, the claims of this clown are laughably false. If he is trying to erode public trust in Wikipedia with these idiotic ramblings, he is doing the exact opposite, because he makes critics look like fruit loops, and Wikipedians look like very sensible people, for kicking him out, and keeping him out. He embodies the "island of broken toys" moniker adopted by one particular Wikipedia scuzzball for the site.

People ought to be persuaded away from Wikipedia, not forced away.

Says the guy who spent ten years forcing people always by his very presence, whilst trying to be committed to Wikipedia (which to this day, he and his sycophants still laughably deny is the reality of his net contribution to Wikipedia). His persuasive efforts thus far, as he now pretends to be a critic, have been nil.

In fact, instead of someone setting up yet another Wikipedia criticism site, why not set up the perfect alternative to Wikipedia and let people choose?

Translation: will someone please create a Wikipedia I would want to edit. The world said no Eric, that's how much of an asshole you are. There is every kind of Wikipedia alternative out there now, extant and defunct. Not one person sat down and said to themselves, let's do what Eric wants. Come to think of it, didn't you repeatedly threaten to create your own fork of Wikipedia? Full of shit were you, as usual. Different critic sites ARE needed, because some unwisely consider butthurt myth perpetuating liars like him to be actual critics, exploiting his own inability to see his only role is to draw gawping crowds from the desired audience - Wikipedians.

Should it be an independent site, or should it be some kind of AI-based amalgam of the best of the internet sources already out there?

I wonder where he stole that idea from?

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... ?f=5&t=547

Idea #5 - do nothing

Probably fastest and less costly than other tries. Wikipedia is pretty much dead already according to usual criteria. The corpse merely needs to rot some more and then it will be gone. Host a party to dance on its grave.

You forget that any organism dedicated to its own survival, fights hard to survive. Wikipedia is no longer aiming to be an encyclopedia, it is and continues to reinvent itself as something else in a desperate effort to ensure it survives in any form. It is not going go away naturally, it needs to be kicked to death. Any aspiring critic simply sitting back and hoping it is going to die of natural causes, most likely through self-induced toxic shock, hasn't properly understood the nature of the beast or the threat it poses. Serious critics and critic sites, work hard to ensure people are aware of these things, because they are the truth of Wikipedia. You're either a head stomper, or a mawkish observer. Pick a team.

--------------------

ARE YOU HAPPY JAKE? THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO WIKIPEDIA CRITICISM. YOU'RE A FUCKING JOKE.

With enemies like this, Wikipedia will probably last for another twenty years at least, entirely unchanged.

Anyway, thanks to Dysklyver for the opportunity to expose what Wikipediocracy is all about. Much appreciated.

[CrowsNest]

For those serious about killing Wikipedia, these are the most viable means.....

1. Legal. Through more onerous government regulation, or a private prosecution back by a wealthy person, a la Gawker. Both are effective.

2. Commercial. A better alternative. But it has to be step-change better, like the AI based killer I proposed above. Would easily kill Wikipedia, rendering the efforts of and perceived status of being a "Wikipedian", entirely moot. So much so, the most committed Wikipedians get quite upset when they realise it. Isn't that right, Cas Liber? You fucking little pussy.

3. Education. Producing quality criticism. Writing about the ongoing truth of Wikipedia that is convincing and compelling because it is both true and you are a credible source. The sign of success? Wikipedians are scared to even acknowledge it. The sign of failure? Wikipedians and their apologists flock in their droves just to mock, or far worse, interpret and indeed embrace your efforts as suggestions for how they can improve. This is obviously not a task well suited to fucking morons, butthurt whiners, or Wikipedia fanboys. Public education is all well and good, but it needs to be recognised that the public is not really interested in Wikipedia's truth, at least not enough to want to kill it. There are more relevant audiences to be targetting, and if you don't know who they are, you probably shouldn't be even be spending your time on this activity until you do.

4. Direct action. You definitely either know how to do this, or you don't. No point teaching people how or where to strike, it is more of an intuitive skill. A real trade-craft. Although obviously, giving aspiring fighters a proper resource through ongoing efforts in education, highlighting the vulnerabilities and strengths of the enemy, helps aspiring recruits figure out for themselves what what strategies work, what success looks like. Naturally, the best recruits are disillusioned editors, so you should invest the time to wean them off their addiction, and open their eyes to reality. Any so called critic site that does not do this, is obviously not an ally.

It is also important to note one thing. Confront All Enemies. This fight will be won by those who know the threat, and are prepared to act on it. Those more interested in the entirely pointless and unachievable goal of reforming Wikipedia, are also the enemey. People too stupid not to understand Wikipedia is irreformable, that every change they make merely reinforces one of their existing faults, are legitimate targets, just as much as the die-hard kool aid drinkers. Those more interested in fighting for readmission to the cult, or resolving their Daddy issues caused by their rejection by the cult, if they can't be re-educated, need kicking to the kerb as the useless trash they are. Those more interested in fighting Trump, and helping Wikipedia to fight Trump, definitely need to fuck right off. Similarly in the reverse case, although largely for them being so stupid as to not realise that is an impossible task.

[CrowsNest]

Last but by no means least. Disavow violent acts in all their forms. The Wikipedians like nothing more than to pretend like they're the victims and it is their critics who are characters of dubious moral character. And they aren't above reporting you to the authorities, or otherwise using such things against you, to shut you up. They take all their cues from how Scientology reacts to criticism, which is understandable since their basic operation is largely like a cult, just without the leader.

Obviously we can't control what other people do about the information we are bringing them here, and frankly if you don't react to it with anger and a burning desire to correct the injustices by any means necessary, then you probably lack the basic human components that most Wikipedians also lack.

Never forget, every last one of them, except the innocent n00bs who are still operating under the belief the propaganda is true, are essentially complicit in the terrible acts committed by Wikipedia and the Wikipedians, since they refuse to act. They are as guilty as those who know exactly what they are doing, and still do it, just because they can. And if these unwitting observers claim they would like to stop it but can't, then why are they still there?

If the Wikipedians choose to organise and conduct themselves in such a way that some people feel like delivering a shovel to the back of their heads is the only viable means of effective resistance, then as terrible as that would be, as much as we would have to condemn it, there is no realistic way the Wikipedians can argue they'd not knowingly left such people feeling like they had no other alternative.

They know their systems which purport to ensure accountability, are wholly insufficient and easily corrupted to ensure injustice prevails. And they thumb their noses at the idea they are accountable to anyone but themselves. They know that policies like WP:CIVIL are not worth the paper they are written on, yet they willingly choose to maintain the fiction they form part of their system of self-governance. Such willing and open negligence, such blatantly unethical behaviour, doesn't come without consequences, and we don't yet live in a world where everyone ascribes to the belief all violence is wrong. Many Wikipedians are of course enthusiastic adherents to the philosophy that it's OK to be violent to people if they hold abhorrent views, and the only reason I know that is because, contrary to all their policies which say otherwise, you can find such statements being made openly, all over Wikipedia. Just one of many examples of their basic truth.