Wikipedia Critics: an Intellectual Analysis

[Anyone]

Right, here's an ordered summary. Larry Sanger at #1. More to follow.

Senior Critics

Larry Sanger
RATING 9/10

TDA
RATING 9/10

Gregory Kohs
RATING 9/10

Eric Barbour
RATING 8/10


Mid-level Critics

Eric Corbett
RATING 7/10

Auggie
RATING 6/10

Mr Lomax
RATING 5/10

Dysklever
RATING 5/10


Junior Critics

Kumioko
RATING 4/10

Ritchie333
RATING 4/10

Vigilant
RATING 4/10

CrowsNest
RATING 4/10

Jake
RATING 3/10

Graaf Statler
RATING 3/10

[Graaf Statler]

Yes Any, but this is not a an Intellectual Analysis, but a who-has-the-highest-tree-house-in-the-wiki-tree analyse.

What are you trying to tell us?

[Anyone]

Let's pad out the middle section a bit.

Mid-level Critics

Sashi / Bezdomi
Sashi is a Canadian. But while most of us will agree that Canada is the world's number one second-rate nation, Sashi is not your average dude. Indeed, Sashi is the gentleman who single-handedly took on the mighty SageCandor and busted him. Down went Sage, and with him went that disgusting piece of filth, Cirt.

CONS
Sashi has a battleground mentality. He gets into scrapes with left-wing shills and never seems to learn. I fear he may be indeffed sooner rather than later.

PROS
A former professional photograhper and expat based in Singapore, Sashi is taken very seriously these days, both on Wikipedia and WPO. We all wish the gentleman well.

RATING
6/10

[Graaf Statler]

Sashi / Bezdomi once told he is from the Mid-West and living in France, Any.........

And he has visit Holland and has eat pancakes there he has told om Auggies Wikirev.

[Murubima]

Regrettably, Mr Swan chooses his friends unwisely. It's known, for example, that he has a high regard for the likes of Cassianto and Blofeld. I find this both puzzling and troubling.

But didn't everything become way less cordial between Mr Swan and Cassianto back in December 2017 after he blocked C?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&oldid=813283594#Let_it_go See the thread "Let it go"

[Anyone]

Graaf, he's not trying to tell people anything (not deliberately). He is simply aiming for a reaction, based on a rather limited understanding of my work. He's simply hoping to annoy me.

Jesus H Christ. This has zilch to do with you.

Are you upset because I've ranked you below Vigilant? Having a little sulk, are we?

Let's take a look at things.

How many times -- as a Wikipedia critic -- have you been interviewed on TV?
ZILCH

How many reputable journalists have approached you for commentary re: Wikipedia?
ZILCH

How many critiques of yours have been published in reliable / reputable sources?
ZILCH

====

Do you see a pattern here?

====

How many FAs did you write?
ZILCH

How many FLs did you write?
ZILCH

How many GAs did you write?
ZILCH

How many articles did you start?
ZILCH

====

Do you see a pattern here?

====

How many people on WPO take you seriously?
ZILCH

How many Wikipedia criticism forums have you set up?
ZILCH

How many blogs related to Wikipedia criticism do you control?
ZILCH

====

Whether you like it or not, you're a Forum Boy.

Move forward. Why be a whinging loser when it's so easy to be a winner. I've told you already what you need to do. You're starting to sound just like Kumioko.

[Anyone]

Regrettably, Mr Swan chooses his friends unwisely. It's known, for example, that he has a high regard for the likes of Cassianto and Blofeld. I find this both puzzling and troubling.

But didn't everything become way less cordial between Mr Swan and Cassianto back in December 2017 after he blocked C?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&oldid=813283594#Let_it_go See the thread "Let it go"

Thank you for this. I do actually remember that incident, though I wouldn't have been able to find it by myself.

Yes, Ritchie and Cassianto had a falling out.

As for how things currently stand, Ritchie is usually pretty cool whereas Cassy Babes is an obnoxious little shit who holds grudges for centuries. So maybe they're not friends right now. Dunno.

[Anyone]

And I repate my question, why is Abd with his IQ 200+ criticism not top ranking

Graaf -- tomorrow I'll re-check my list.

You ask why Mr Lomax isn't at number one.

To be honest, I think it's YOU that should be at number one!

Have a nice day in Italy, Mr Statler. Enjoy your holidays.

[Graaf Statler]

Graaf -- tomorrow I'll re-check my list.

You ask why Mr Lomax isn't at number one.

To be honest, I think it's YOU that should be at number one!

Have a nice day in Italy, Mr Statler. Enjoy your holidays.

Number one?

Above Vig and Abd? What a honour!

And the sun isnow going down on the lake now here in Italy, Really great!

[Abd]

And I repeat my question, why is Abd with his IQ 200+ criticism not top ranking

II don't necessarily see Graaf's postings because I have him on Ignore. Saves me much aggravation. I believe he can still PM me if he likes, but he wrote he was done with that. His choice. Always. And he can indirectly get my attention easily, by asking anyone to quote it and sometimes that isn't necessary. In fact, if he writes something worth reading, quotation is likely.

Factual: "IQ200+" indicates a rarity that makes the person something like the smartest person on the planet. Not impossible, but certain a claim of great rarity. When I was in high school, my IQ was measured at 157, as I recall. That is roughly in in 5000, which is pretty much consistent with my experience in high school. With that and other similar test results, I got into Cal Tech, where I was in a whole community of very smart kids. Fun, actually.

That is based on a test that measures a particular kind of intelligence. There are many kinds, and an IQ like that can actually be a hindrance, if accompanied by social dysfunction. Mine was, to a degree. It's possible to compensate, if it's recognized. Otherwise the supposedly smart person simply becomes highly skilled at blaming others, and will do it it so very, very smartly that many hate them. And another who do recognize what is happening and tries to advise the person can become their "enemy." It's quite pernicious, but this is a clue:

Everywhere you go, there you are. In my training, they pointed out that if you run into the same basic issues everywhere, or in many places, at least, there is one common factor to all these.

And it's obvious.

But, for me, how? How was I creating all this? I was simply telling the truth! [and then I can come up with a host of reasons why it was everyone else's fault.] Another clue:

when we ask a question like that, shut up and listen until we have an inspiring answer. "How" is about power, not morality.

We, quite often, don't listen because we have an emotional reaction to the question. We treat it as an attack and an insult. The great secret: underneath what we were doing is a demonstration of power, power that was being used to play out childhood drama -- or the like. If we take responsibility for the effect we have on others, we can then begin to create the effects that are really worth creating. No shame, no blame, that's all reactive brain stuff.

Graaf -- tomorrow I'll re-check my list.
You ask why Mr Lomax isn't at number one.

I don't have that question, and I have no need or desire to be "number one." The list was simply Anyone's personal, rather subjective list, though it was his personal reaction to objective fact, at least he listed facts.

To be honest, I think it's YOU that should be at number one!
Have a nice day in Italy, Mr Statler. Enjoy your holidays.

Now, this is crucial. Reading Anyone's writing, I imagine him smiling. I do not imagine hatred or anger, and I see a certain dispassion. Either that is real or he's doing a great job imitating it. And what really matters in a forum like this is impression, the effects created. Anyone has made mistakes, I think, but he has not taken on "proving" that he is right. He's avoiding that trap. Who is the top critic? Who cares? Let me assert that one who cares is definitely not the top critic. In any field.