View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:04 am




Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Wikipediocracy fixed Wikipedia AGAIN. Wait. What? 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
Another ice age has passed, so you know what that means. The scrappy never give up folks of Wikipediocracy wroted another blog post. Yay!

http://wikipediocracy.com/2019/02/07/so ... er-learns/

I skipped to the bottom, because, well, y'know, their stuff is fuuuucking hard work. Imagine my surprise, when it seemed they had yet again, FIXED WIKIPEDIA. These folks are dead smart, aren't they? They make things go, as their leader once said, in an ironic but not appreciating the irony way.

Anyway, yes, behold the fix......
Quote:
What should be done? The same thing that should have been done when Qworty was exposed. First, acknowledge that there are people who use Wikipedia to attack other people, sometimes for years. Second, acknowledge that every biography is a potential target for this. Third, protect every single biography of a living person with the existing pending revisions system. Fourth, ensure that every new biography gets protected this way by an admin-bot. Fifth, fully and permanently protect articles that are obvious problems (like Rachel Marsden’s).

All of these actions could be done right now, with only a modicum of effort. And while none of them directly address the sockpuppetry issues, they would go a long way to cut down on cases like this going forward.
So, as you can see, they made some claims, and sat back like we're supposed to be glad their mom's and dad's bumped uglies and gifted the world their genius.

You know what this means too. TO THE ANALYSIS BUS!
Quote:
acknowledge that there are people who use Wikipedia to attack other people, sometimes for years
Ok, right. You want Wikipedia to acknowledge that they facilitate scumbags? You expect this to happen. Did you, like, just meet them or something?

Get the fuck out of here with this lazy ass shit. Telling people Wikipedia should do shit they never gonna do, like you're too stupid not to know they won't be doing it. You knew it, right? Riiiiight?
Quote:
acknowledge that every biography is a potential target for this.
These fucking people. I hate it when they make me stick up for Wikipedia. If you don't think Wikipedia hasn't yet "acknowledged" biographies are potential targets for bad people looking to do bad shit, then you are blind. Your issue is how they react, clearly. As you well know. Please. Just stop with the stupid. You're meant to stop the cuetip when you feel resistance.
Quote:
protect every single biography of a living person with the existing pending revisions system.
Why? What will that achieve, for instance in this particular case? Do you think your readers are stupid? Do you think they might not realise how easy it would be for one of these bad people to get on the 'automatically accept my edits' list? It's a very big fucking list. Are you really trying to suggest to the world Wikipedia has had the capacity or the desire to do a background check on all the current 7,122 people on that list? Shit, I bet there are DEAD PEOPLE still on it. Wikipedians die. Not fast enough, but they are mortal. Not even Xeno likes them. And to state the fucking obvious, even if you can't get on that list, you just attack a related article, like.....a book.

If you want to educate people, why not tell them how many times this scenario has played out: Wikipedia is busy being Wikipedia. Something bad happens, because, well, Wikipedia. They implement a fix. The bad people figure out how to circumvent this new inconvenience. Something bad happens. There are Wikipedia editors right now adding and removing white space from articles, one of the many ways around a recently erected barrier the Wikipedians were too stupid to even predict. You think that shit just happens? It's called an arms race. And Wikipedia isn't very good at making weapons. The encyclopedia is built and maintained by weapons, but that isn't the same thing at all.
Quote:
ensure that every new biography gets protected this way by an admin-bot
Oh, I see. You're only pretending to be Wikipedia critics. What you are really here to do, is push their propaganda for them. Why not be honest with the reader? Why not tell them that this is precisely the strategy Wikipedia has right now, for fixing all its problems? Hand it all over to bots. Like that ever solved ANYTHING.
Quote:
fully and permanently protect articles that are obvious problems (like Rachel Marsden’s).
Hey, geniuses. Didn't you start out by explaining that all biographies are potential targets? But hey, I'm all ears. Your method for determining what is and is not an obvious problem biography, is what exactly? If you say it is a biography that has been attacked before, I swear to God......
Quote:
All of these actions could be done right now, with only a modicum of effort.
On spare me. I could rattle off twenty things the Wikipedians could do with virtually zero effort that would massively decrease the harm they do, and every single one of them, will not happen, not now, not ever. Just add your bullshit to the pile. Seriously, have you really never met the Wikipedians?
Quote:
they would go a long way to cut down on cases like this going forward.
Really? The Wikipedians could fulfil every wish on your sad little list, and the barriers to someone doing a Qwerty, the disincentives to the sort of people who do such things, would still be virtually indistinguishable from thoughts and prayers. Seriously, get the fuck out of here with this shit.

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

There we have it. Not for the first time, dear reader, we serious critics who actually have knowledge of Wikipedia, are forced to apologise for the fact there are people out there who still think Wikipediocracy is a Wikipedia criticism site. Not for the first time, they have hidden the identity of the author of one of their laughable attempts at bringing knowledge and expertise to the world. Not even revealing their forum handle. Understandable really. They're kind of sensitive to criticism. Ironic, no?

You really want to prevent another Qwerty? Rather than just prop up a failing project with their own already tried and failed bullshit propoganda. In no particular order....

1. real identities required before editing

That's it.

They won't do it, and I don't blame them in their position (not because it is not the right thing to do, but because a competitor would simply take advantage and launch Original Wikipedia, still with all that anonymous goodness you know and love), so we're back to the only sensible solution anyone has ever come up with to rid the world of the harm Wikipedia does......

DESTROY IT.

HTD.


Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:35 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1236
Reply with quote
All you can do is point and laugh.

Note that this kind of Canadian political editwarring ALWAYS ends up involving Rachel Marsden. Stupid but true.

Also notice that Tarantino, their new Fearless Leader, has been keeping a very low profile lately....their forum is becoming more like a Poetlister monologue every day.


Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:26 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 520
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
....Also notice that Tarantino, their new Fearless Leader, has been keeping a very low profile lately....their forum is becoming more like a Poetlister monologue every day.


As King of the Spooks, shouldn't you only see the online equivalent of a big fedora, sunglasses, and a long trenchcoat? That guy is in so deep, he should be invisible in broad daylight.

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


Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:08 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1236
Reply with quote
Strelnikov wrote:
As King of the Spooks, shouldn't you only see the online equivalent of a big fedora, sunglasses, and a long trenchcoat? That guy is in so deep, he should be invisible in broad daylight.

I can easily picture him in the mod's area, blubbering that "Strelnikov is a RACIST and, and, and we have to DESTROY him". Because you used the word "spook". That's the definition of Internet pathetic spergitry.

Say again: Nothing that Tarantino might actually be up to would surprise me. Paid editing, WMF insider, political operative biasing content. Maybe all three at once (it's happened, anyone remember Sarah Stierch? She's still doing paid editing despite losing all her admin powers!) Of course it's more difficult to bullshit people on Wikipedia because they routinely block active TOR nodes. So he would have to operate dozens of sock accounts. But WO doesn't give a ratball about TOR or other means of hiding, so he can "go to town".

BTW I suspect Mid-Jake wrote that blog post. It's his particular brand of mild snark.


Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:49 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

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.