View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:59 pm




Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Wikipediocracy is an Annoying Wikipedia Fanboard 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 168
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Quote:
This shit is BORING.
That's Beeblebrox


Yeah sorry Beebs but it doesn't appear there are dramaboards over there on everipedia.

I'm not going to jump down Jake's throat for running the retirement home as he sees fit. I just wish there were more bingo.


Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:15 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 781
Reply with quote
What fascinates me, altough it is all very boring why the sekt members react only by the word Evripedia like a dog with flees.

And Jack, gosh, Jack. You know I like Jake. And I understand his impossible position and situation and respect that. Running a critical board what is in fact a safe harbour for overstressed Wikiopedians to cool down so they are fit enough for a other dive in the wiki sewers.
And that is a hard job. Because you have to tolerate a form of criticism, but not to much otherwise poor the wikipedians start to cry.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:43 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1097
Reply with quote
Thanks is Jake talking to Gender Desk about the Tate biography controversy.
Quote:
As for why Wikipediocracy isn’t covering it, two reasons: 1) it’s the Tate’s mistake to become a WP scraper, not WP’s, and 2) while all this is obviously bad, they claim it involves some cost savings for the Tate and publicizing it could easily give other GLAM institutions the same bad idea.
What a load of nonsense. It takes five seconds to appreciate Tate's "mistake" only occurred because they are clearly woefully uninformed about how Wikipedia really works, and were only too ready to accept the WMF propaganda that they are reasonably accurate and up to date. I seem to remember Wikipediocracy used to want to play a role in correcting these misconceptions. As for this idea that by not covering something, others wouldn't get the same idea? Laughable.

Realising his mistake, he has gone on to say this....
Quote:
she makes some good points, and I was thinking a blog post on this may be in order.
Seriously? They're still pretending like writing blog posts is what they do?

Writing an authoritive post on this would be hard when he believes garbage like this.....
Quote:
a pre-existing Wikipedia BLP isn’t going to be *dramatically* worse than something written by a Tate staff member unless it’s under attack by someone who hates the article subject for some reason.
First, this is obvious bullshit. There are countless other reasons why it could be total garbage in comparison Second, since when was the criteria "dramatically worse" anyway?

AFAIK Jake has never written a blog post in his life. And anyone who accepts an invitation to write one on this subject on his behalf, they're just being a fool to themselves.


Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 103
Reply with quote
Also there's really not much point in blogging about something already blogged about by Genderdesk.

Not unless your take on the subject is going to be completely different anyway.

Otherwise it's just a reprint/rip-off.

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal.


Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1097
Reply with quote
Dysklyver wrote:
Also there's really not much point in blogging about something already blogged about by Genderdesk.

Not unless your take on the subject is going to be completely different anyway.

Otherwise it's just a reprint/rip-off.
A serious critic will always be able to do better than GenderDesk, her knowledge of Wikipedia simply isn't broad enough, and her singular focus on gender, while admirable, is a massive blind spot for her. She also just makes too many simple errors, things which Wikipedians can easily use to debunk her entire posts, stuff other critics could spot before she posted. She could do better if she wanted. She does not want.

I knocked this up in half an hour.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=789

Imagine what I could do if I was motivated by something other than proving how poor Wikipediocracy and Gender Desk are as so called Wikipedia critics? It's embarrassing sometimes, how easy it is to embarrass them. I try to warn people, don't take me for a fool. They just didn't listen.


Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 781
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:
Also there's really not much point in blogging about something already blogged about by Genderdesk.

Not unless your take on the subject is going to be completely different anyway.

Otherwise it's just a reprint/rip-off.
A serious critic will always be able to do better than GenderDesk, her knowledge of Wikipedia simply isn't broad enough, and her singular focus on gender, while admirable, is a massive blind spot for her. She also just makes too many simple errors, things which Wikipedians can easily use to debunk her entire posts, stuff other critics could spot before she posted. She could do better if she wanted. She does not want.

I knocked this up in half an hour.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=789

Imagine what I could do if I was motivated by something other than proving how poor Wikipediocracy and Gender Desk are as so called Wikipedia critics? It's embarrassing sometimes, how easy it is to embarrass them. I try to warn people, don't take me for a fool. They just didn't listen.

I told Jake many times I don't like it at all you are mute on WO. I did a few days ago a proposal, give Crow at least acces to the closed section but I didn't get a reaction. And no, I never took you for a fool and maybe that is the whole point, they are afraid of you.....

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:14 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1097
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
I never took you for a fool and maybe that is the whole point, they are afraid of you.....
Well, there was that one time early on when you thought I was a troll and a sockpuppet, but hey, we all make mistakes. :oops: ;) :lol: But yes, they way they interact with me these days, communicating through intermediaries and generally being spoken of in hushed tones as if I may never have even existed at all, on the odd occasion they're not overtly pretending I don't exist (even while obviously reading my posts!), it really is only explained by them being terrified of what I am capable of, if I was ever allowed back.

Even as a poster who otherwise goes along with their sham policy that they have standards and expectations of how posters should interact, I still got banned for making them feel sad about themselves, highlighting their failures and hypocrisies. So you can only imagine how they would freak out if I was unconstrained by any such niceties. Even Eric, the guy who proclaims to have never been afraid to call a cunt a cunt, is too afraid to come here and accept the challenge of proving I'm the one who has no clue.

As you and Dysklyver have proved recently, Wikipediocracy is now the place where the Eric Corbett's of this world get to say things like 'antitrust only applies where Google has direct commercial benefit' and the regulars just keep their mouths shut, being either too stupid to realise what BS that is, or too afraid to get on Eric's shit list to point it out. Similarly, it is a place where Jake gets to come in and claim there's never been a successful antitrust suit against Google where hasn't been clear and obvious blacklisting. It matters not to these pride filled ingnoramouses that both of these ideas are thoroughly debunked by the contents of the links you both tried to educate Eric with.

King Jake then proclaims the thread will soon be locked, because you people are the problem, not him or his moderator (who did nothing to stop the thread being derailed off topic in the first place). Not that Jake even thinks the original subject was valid, because of course he agrees with the Wikipedians that the ban of someone nobody else knows the identity of, was correct. This is why both of you will eventually be banned from there. They don't like being corrected, much less contradicted. The difference to this place in that crucial aspect, is clear and obvious.


Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:24 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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.