View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:43 am




Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Wikipediocrats not understanding how Wikipedia works 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Eric Corbett wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Quote:
The public is not able to post articles directly to the site, as they are with Wikipedia, but academics and experienced writers can submit articles for consideration.
This is roughly how Wikipedia should be run.
It almost certainly is how Wikipedia should be run, but it's too radical an approach for the old fossil.
Look at these two morons. On what planet is this not how Wikipedia already operates?

For a start, Wikipedia recently completely turned off the ability for anyone to just turn up and post an article directly to the site. If you don't have an account which is four days old and has made ten edits, then your only option is to literally "submit for consideration".

Any suggestion that meeting this arbitrary requirement means you are free to post an article, is laughable. The only way that happens, is if nobody notices. The Wikipedia community is so fucking paranoid now that if you create an article before you have a substantial history of edits behind you, you will be assumed to be a banned editor or an undeclared paid editor. The better the article is, the greater the suspicion will be.

This means you will either be directly targeted for harassment, or your article will be attacked, both things being designed to make you confess, leave, or do something that ensures you can be banned. This will all be fully sanctioned by the community, either because Administrators will refuse to hear your complaints, or they will even be the ones harassing you.

"The public" are able to edit Wikipedia only after they have undergone the transformation into a "Wikipedian". That not only means you have to perform a bucket load of uncontroversial edits, you have to debase and degrade yourself in numerous other ways, all designed to ensure you fit in with what they call their community.

On Wikipedia, even academics or experienced writers have to "submit for consideration" if they are not already "Wikipedians". Doc James does not have free reign to fuck with any article he chooses because he is a mediocre doctor, but because he is a top ranked Wikipedian. Countless people who are recognised writers or academics in the real world, have been banned by Wikipedia. These qualifications are entirely unimportant to the community in comparison to their love of being able to define who is and isn't a Wikipedian.


Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Ming wrote:
WP's "criticism" sections are one of the worst aspects of the house "style" anyway, right after "in popular culture".
What house style? Policy says....
Quote:
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.
It goes on to clarify "Criticism" sections are not banned, but they are by no means an accepted style.

And as this essay explains....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content

.....it is not the mere existence of "In popular culture" sections that are a problem, it is that Wikipedia simply does not work (as in, it is virtually impossible to ensure content matches guidance)


Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Huh?
Boing!_said_Zebedee wrote:
There's no tech-savvy needed to be an admin.
First, you need to be a very proficient Wikipedia editor - the ability to navigate Wikipedia's assorted mass of archives, transclusions, interfaces, templates, and all that other assorted bullshit they have gaffer tapped onto the place over the years, is essential. If you don't know how to do any of that, there's a good chance you won't be able to give a full service to people in need of your services, and will just be a burden to your colleagues, who did not become Administrators to be your hand maidens. I was going to then explain all the other things you'd need to be able to do as an Administrator which require technical skill, but frankly, the first point is enough. If this dipshit doesn't think that level of expertise can be called "tech-savvy", then I think we have a good example here of Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. Boing! is a NERD.


Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:14 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Look at these prats......
Poetlister wrote:
Eric_Corbett wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
... I mean look at the Wikimedia foundations new website. It is absolutely ridiculous! Completely unprofessional and it looks like a kindergartener made it in art class.
The WMF certainly made some bold choices with that web site, that's for sure. God knows why they ended with an abortion like that though.
That's the quality of WMF staff manifesting itself.
If any one of these three morons was a decent Wikipedia critic, they would already know the new WMF website was made by an external contractor. If they knew that, readers of Wikipediocracy might be treated to some decent criticism of real stuff that really happened. Instead, they get Moe, Larry and Curly here, stumbling blindly around in their sheer ignorance. Is Poetlister perhaps referring to the WMF Department that deals with procuring and monitoring external contracts? Or course he isn't.

You want serious criticism, you of course have to consult a serious critic.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... ?f=5&t=668

You want POINTLESS GARBAGE, you go to Wikipediocracy.

I deliberately bumped that post when it actually relaucnhed, to remind them of crucial details, to help them not look like ignorant fools. I might as well be talking to dogs, for all the use it does. It's like they're a different species, very much a lower Order of Life. Much like the Wikipedias themselves, who they so often emulate in their thinking and behaviour (hence why they are so upset at not being Wikipedians anymore).

Isn't that right Jake? You fucking idiot. If Jake isn't an WMF mole, sent to make Wikipedia criticism look like amateur hour bullshit, then he should be. Because he's really good at it. It is already suspected of course that his side bitch Tarantino is an WMF insider.

I would tear these three little piggies each a new asshole for being this dumb. In perfectly polite terms of course, honouring their policy of board decorum (don't laugh). And I know exactly how they would react. Kumioko would just pretend like he knew it all already, and talk some more crap, further revealing he didn't. Eric would leave in a flounce, claiming harassment. Poetlister would just do what he does, which if you know him, you already know is nothing that could be called credible or honourable. Hence why Jake doesn't want me within a million miles of these special flowers.

Ignorant fucking bastards. No threat to Wikipedia whatsoever. Why would they fear this? If they acknowledged it at all, it would be only to laugh at it. Which they most likely do, in the privacy of WMF Towers.

Into the sea with you!


Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:34 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 585
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Look, Zoloft ("Monty" Burns) doesn't answer his email anymore, and neither does his replacement. It's a blog and forum where the blog hasn't been updated since October and the forum has more sock accounts for WMF lurkers than active people on it. FBI child porn sting websites have more real people blowing through them than the WO-MB. If we had a meetup between our board and theirs, we could hold it in a Round Table Pizza and there would still be room for the Jones family's 6-year-old's birthday party with all the kids from school the Jones kid knows.

It's a small world.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:39 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
Strelnikov wrote:
If we had a meetup between our board and theirs,

That won't happen. Wikipediocracy is now a boring fanboy hangout--especially with Tarantino and Somey/Jake running it like the NKVD and Zoloft missing in action. You will no longer see honest reporting there. Period, end of story.
Quote:
For a start, Wikipedia recently completely turned off the ability for anyone to just turn up and post an article directly to the site. If you don't have an account which is four days old and has made ten edits, then your only option is to literally "submit for consideration".

Any suggestion that meeting this arbitrary requirement means you are free to post an article, is laughable. The only way that happens, is if nobody notices. The Wikipedia community is so fucking paranoid now that if you create an article before you have a substantial history of edits behind you, you will be assumed to be a banned editor or an undeclared paid editor. The better the article is, the greater the suspicion will be.

If they had implemented new-article restrictions back in 2003, Wikipedia would not have endured all the massive internal problems it had for most of its history. It also would not have as much content today, but then everything is a tradeoff.

The WMF would certainly have a better grade of people on its staff, if they had just been a little more selective and a little less inbred. Only a deep-madhouse would give great political power to people like David Gerard, Oliver Keyes, James Forrester, James Alexander, Jay Walsh, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Fred Bauder, Jonathan Cardy, Josh Gordon, Lise Broer, Mark Pellegrini, MONGO, and dozens of others.


Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Beeblebrox on his pet obsession.....
Quote:
the mandatory notifications need to go as they are basically an invitation to game the policy and there are a number of admins who have almost been removed several times, but make their one edit when they get the notification. The notifications made sense 7 years ago. They don't anymore. If you aren't aware of the inactivity policy by now you shouldn't be an admin.
Nobody on Wikipediocracy even pointed out that an Administrator desysoped for inactivity who wants their tools back, needs only ask at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, and their wish shall be granted (this really should be called 'Doing a Malik', in honour of Drmies). This is not the case for anyone who hasn't used the tools in five years, or not made an edit at all in three, but those are obviously not the people Beeblebrox is trying to catch out with his genius idea here. He is not going after people who are unaware of the policy, as he claims, he is going after the people who are aware of it enough to be able to game it. The people who would also know how easy it is to get the tools back if they are indeed removed via this sneaky method.

Beeblebrox really is a moron. His petty efforts against the very real threat of inactive Administrators is achieving nothing. Is it too much to ask for alleged Wikipedia critics to be able to point that out?


Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 372
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Beeblebrox really is a moron. [...] Is it too much to ask for alleged Wikipedia critics to be able to point that out?


Really can't be asked, it is vaguely amusing watching Beeblebrox running round and round against a set of stupid rules and the people gaming them. Then getting frustrated because nothing happens. ;)

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:26 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 585
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Beeblebrox on his pet obsession.....
Quote:
the mandatory notifications need to go as they are basically an invitation to game the policy and there are a number of admins who have almost been removed several times, but make their one edit when they get the notification. The notifications made sense 7 years ago. They don't anymore. If you aren't aware of the inactivity policy by now you shouldn't be an admin.
Nobody on Wikipediocracy even pointed out that an Administrator desysoped for inactivity who wants their tools back, needs only ask at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, and their wish shall be granted (this really should be called 'Doing a Malik', in honour of Drmies). This is not the case for anyone who hasn't used the tools in five years, or not made an edit at all in three, but those are obviously not the people Beeblebrox is trying to catch out with his genius idea here. He is not going after people who are unaware of the policy, as he claims, he is going after the people who are aware of it enough to be able to game it. The people who would also know how easy it is to get the tools back if they are indeed removed via this sneaky method.

Beeblebrox really is a moron. His petty efforts against the very real threat of inactive Administrators is achieving nothing. Is it too much to ask for alleged Wikipedia critics to be able to point that out?


You want an example of petty? Zoloft gave me an avatar photo of "Stierlitz", the Soviet character my WO-MB account was named after, this very image (from Wikipedia, natch):
Image I thanked him. Right after I was given the boot, he ripped it down and I was faceless again.

These nutters seem to think that "we made you, we can break you" because everybody is an ex-Wikipedian....until I, the outsider, showed up. On any forum you give them as much power over as you are willing to give away. On a healthy messageboard that amount is little. On Wikipediocracy, it's all MacCarthy-era loyalty oaths and private games between the administration and the users and between individual administrators, and they only have an audience because they badmouth us and Auggie's board to any of the truly fresh people while tolerating a billion WMF socks. It's a sinking ship with a crew unwilling or unable to turn on the bilge pumps and close up flooded compartments, and they are unwilling to turn on the disaster beacon and call "mayday" by voice, digital mode, or simple Morse code (the radioman's dead drunk.) In other words, these are fixable things with a competent collection of people.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:07 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1573
Reply with quote
The one guy whose career on en-WP gives the lie to all that "Wiki-Luv" crap, Eric Corbett, is now one of the few remaining regulars on WO. How many times was he banned and unbanned? You can't even trust the block log because it's been tampered with a hundred times!


Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:01 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 105 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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.