- Screenshot from 2019-03-14 10-28-42.png (61.84 KiB) Viewed 7651 times
As of today, wikipediocracy.com is suspended it seems.
RIP
Re: RIP
> drill wikipediocracy.com
> whois 74.220.212.158
Bluehost is part of the Endurance International Group. TheRedPenOfDoom, NorthBySouthBaranof, and EvergreenFir don't want you to know that. How curious.
wikipediocracy.com. 14400 IN A 74.220.212.158
> whois 74.220.212.158
CIDR: 74.220.192.0/19
NetName: BLUEHOST-NETWORK-2
Bluehost is part of the Endurance International Group. TheRedPenOfDoom, NorthBySouthBaranof, and EvergreenFir don't want you to know that. How curious.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: RIP
As long we don't know the reason it is hard to say what happend. Didn't they pay the bill? Was it just taken out of the air because of complains? The only ones who can answer this questions and tell us what happend are Zoloft and the other sysops and they are welcome here to tell us.
But it is not a big lose, that is for sure except for Kumioko.
But it is not a big lose, that is for sure except for Kumioko.
Re: RIP
I checked Wikipedia. They said get back to us......
That's a good question. It's unclear to me whether the site is down for a day or two or down more permanently. I think the site is a big enough deal that if it's gone for good, it will be covered somewhere. How about we wait a few days and reassess, and if it's still gone and there still hasn't been any coverage of it, we can say something like "As of X date, the site is offline." Marquardtika (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: RIP
I am wondering if there is anyone in this world except Kumioko who wants to take the trouble to cover that bullshit site. No. I think the Wiki world will never be the same.
Alexander out, Maher and Jimmy seems to me mute about there beloved Pirate Party, WO on black, change is in the air.
Shasi was talking about the second dewikifyin' border-blaster soapbox to go down in the last 30 days on aggies WR, wonder what that other soap box was.
Alexander out, Maher and Jimmy seems to me mute about there beloved Pirate Party, WO on black, change is in the air.
Shasi was talking about the second dewikifyin' border-blaster soapbox to go down in the last 30 days on aggies WR, wonder what that other soap box was.
-
Abd
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: RIP
I was searching for information about the outage, and an outage site reported it was up. It was, and is. Someone had already breathlessly reported it as defunct on Wikipedia.
What is phenomenal is how Wikipedia continues to sit with a radically inefficient process, that wastes enormous time on what would be obvious decisions for any responsible publisher. That inefficiency is the strongest reason for the decay of Wikipedia, it burns users out.
Wikipedia, in the reliable source standards, knows the elements that make for (relative) reliability: known publishers with a reputation to protect. However, the fixation on anonymous editing, and the confusion between this (a good thing, at a 'suggestion" level) and responsible administration (where anonymity is an invitation to abuse), seems never to have occurred to the community, or, if it did, the idea was immediately terminated with extreme prejudiced and salted.
Because the basic structural issues were not addressed in setting up wikipediocracy, it replicated very similar problems: star chanber process, no development of community structure that could actually find genuine consensus with efficiency, a Luddite dislike of reasoned and evidenced discussion, and preference for snark and lulz -- if by insiders. If by an outsider, off with his head!
That's fine for a neighborhood saloon, as I used to call Wikipedia Review, but not for an project attempting to reform Wikipedia. The WPO principle appeared to be "Wikipediots are stupid," but they were not smarter.
The idea seemed to be that if free discussion is allowed, truth and understanding will automatically appear. There is a kind of truth to that, but it would require a civil environment and strong minority protection. And then, because free discussion irritates some, anyone unpopular -- say for "writing too much" -- was banned, without warning. (Even though it is trivial to suppress display of a disliked author.) Star chamber process, no accountability, no protective structures, and, apparently, nobody cared.
I began the process of abandoning my work on WMF wikis when I found that nobody in the meta community cared that stewards were hiding their actions, using suppression ("oversighting") of material, from public logs, that would be completely harmless if there were no misbehavior, and misbehavior had not been alleged in what they hid. Just lists of global locks, sorted by category and acting steward, 5000 locks over a three month period.
(Locking was a quick-and-dirty tool developed for dealing with massive spam, and implemented with promises that it would not be used beyond that. Most of the 5000 locks were just that, though it had crept below "massive," they were using login wiki to detect spam user registration and whacking them without any edits, which once in a while was an error -- but they quickly corrected it. So the usage, was, my view, proper. But then there was one steward, who had issued the only possibly abusive locks, based on personal animosity. The reality was that the only 5 locks in 5000 that looked like this were his, and he had only issued a relatively small number of locks. So, yes, the data made him look bad, he stood out like a sore thumb, if anyone looked. I didn't have to accuse him of anything. And there were stewards following that project, who did not object. But who also did not stand for community oversight when push came to shove. Gotta support the other stewards! It's quite like police abuse. The problem is not so much the bad apples, but "good people" who stand by and do nothing.)
I abandoned investing work in Wikiversity when I discovered that a sysop could block a user for extremely mild "criticism," hardly even that, and nobody cared. It was a sign to me that the protections of an awake community had evaporated, so contributing content there had become hazardous. And that is how communities fail, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
What is phenomenal is how Wikipedia continues to sit with a radically inefficient process, that wastes enormous time on what would be obvious decisions for any responsible publisher. That inefficiency is the strongest reason for the decay of Wikipedia, it burns users out.
Wikipedia, in the reliable source standards, knows the elements that make for (relative) reliability: known publishers with a reputation to protect. However, the fixation on anonymous editing, and the confusion between this (a good thing, at a 'suggestion" level) and responsible administration (where anonymity is an invitation to abuse), seems never to have occurred to the community, or, if it did, the idea was immediately terminated with extreme prejudiced and salted.
Because the basic structural issues were not addressed in setting up wikipediocracy, it replicated very similar problems: star chanber process, no development of community structure that could actually find genuine consensus with efficiency, a Luddite dislike of reasoned and evidenced discussion, and preference for snark and lulz -- if by insiders. If by an outsider, off with his head!
That's fine for a neighborhood saloon, as I used to call Wikipedia Review, but not for an project attempting to reform Wikipedia. The WPO principle appeared to be "Wikipediots are stupid," but they were not smarter.
The idea seemed to be that if free discussion is allowed, truth and understanding will automatically appear. There is a kind of truth to that, but it would require a civil environment and strong minority protection. And then, because free discussion irritates some, anyone unpopular -- say for "writing too much" -- was banned, without warning. (Even though it is trivial to suppress display of a disliked author.) Star chamber process, no accountability, no protective structures, and, apparently, nobody cared.
I began the process of abandoning my work on WMF wikis when I found that nobody in the meta community cared that stewards were hiding their actions, using suppression ("oversighting") of material, from public logs, that would be completely harmless if there were no misbehavior, and misbehavior had not been alleged in what they hid. Just lists of global locks, sorted by category and acting steward, 5000 locks over a three month period.
(Locking was a quick-and-dirty tool developed for dealing with massive spam, and implemented with promises that it would not be used beyond that. Most of the 5000 locks were just that, though it had crept below "massive," they were using login wiki to detect spam user registration and whacking them without any edits, which once in a while was an error -- but they quickly corrected it. So the usage, was, my view, proper. But then there was one steward, who had issued the only possibly abusive locks, based on personal animosity. The reality was that the only 5 locks in 5000 that looked like this were his, and he had only issued a relatively small number of locks. So, yes, the data made him look bad, he stood out like a sore thumb, if anyone looked. I didn't have to accuse him of anything. And there were stewards following that project, who did not object. But who also did not stand for community oversight when push came to shove. Gotta support the other stewards! It's quite like police abuse. The problem is not so much the bad apples, but "good people" who stand by and do nothing.)
I abandoned investing work in Wikiversity when I discovered that a sysop could block a user for extremely mild "criticism," hardly even that, and nobody cared. It was a sign to me that the protections of an awake community had evaporated, so contributing content there had become hazardous. And that is how communities fail, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: RIP
Anyway, good to see you again Abd.
What my problem was is here very good described on Jimmytalk by a German user, Christian140.
It is complete clear our Dutch wiki is highjacked too by al kind of political activists of the Pirate Party and gender activists who where trolling themself in heaven. But it was impossible to complain. The same happend as you describe, a sysop could block a user for extremely mild "criticism," hardly even that, and nobody cared.
If you explained something in a friendly way, a moderated way, a polite way, tried to explane it in a simple way, they had always this biased page to declare you to a troll. Point by point was explained why you was a troll and why you had to be blocked. Or they tried to declared you to a pscho, like they did with me. They were always finding a way to hurt you with a group united in the Chapter. With the warm support of WMF. WMF doesn't care how big the trolling is, of course they had every change to ask a few questions to me what was goinging on, and if I was really a lier who had stolen a identity. I have never had any change to defend myself, to tell my side of the story, and on WO it was the same. Ming and friends just continued the trolling on WO and I was always blocked there. They just continued the dirty game.
The topic of Kumoiko was embarrassing, a man who wanted so much to be excepted again, to return and Wikipedia users and sysops who knew dammed well that Alexander SanFanBans where complete insane nonsense who tried to defence that ban. But WO is back in the race again!
What my problem was is here very good described on Jimmytalk by a German user, Christian140.
My main point regarding the vote is that it is against the neutrality principle of wikipedia and that it was performed in the short term of only one week, which is unusually short. So, that makes it seem to me like a group of political activists hijacked wikipedia for their agenda and pushed the whole idea.
It is complete clear our Dutch wiki is highjacked too by al kind of political activists of the Pirate Party and gender activists who where trolling themself in heaven. But it was impossible to complain. The same happend as you describe, a sysop could block a user for extremely mild "criticism," hardly even that, and nobody cared.
If you explained something in a friendly way, a moderated way, a polite way, tried to explane it in a simple way, they had always this biased page to declare you to a troll. Point by point was explained why you was a troll and why you had to be blocked. Or they tried to declared you to a pscho, like they did with me. They were always finding a way to hurt you with a group united in the Chapter. With the warm support of WMF. WMF doesn't care how big the trolling is, of course they had every change to ask a few questions to me what was goinging on, and if I was really a lier who had stolen a identity. I have never had any change to defend myself, to tell my side of the story, and on WO it was the same. Ming and friends just continued the trolling on WO and I was always blocked there. They just continued the dirty game.
The topic of Kumoiko was embarrassing, a man who wanted so much to be excepted again, to return and Wikipedia users and sysops who knew dammed well that Alexander SanFanBans where complete insane nonsense who tried to defence that ban. But WO is back in the race again!
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: RIP
I know, sorry about that. We got Graaf all excited for nothing...
Not at all, Somey. If you want to make the fool out of yourself with your lousy WO, who am I to stop you? As part of the complete wiki-soap you are playing your roll as a clown perfect.
Just like Wikipedia, I don't belong to the hasten the day mouvement. If you guys fuck yourself, or each other, I don't care and to be honest I already started to miss your daily shit strom a bit.