View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:34 pm




Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
The cowards of Wikipediocracy 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
What's the effect you are aiming for?

In general: providing commentary that tends to explain and evidence the corruption inherent in Wikipedia. In this particular case: showing possible ways of organising critical commentary so as to make it more effective. Oh, and making it clear to you, yes I mean you, CrowsNest, that you don't get your own way over everything just by being more bad-tempered than some of the other critics.
But I have got my way. I haven't taken a blind bit of notice of your feedback, and neither has anyone else. The content is still where I placed it, and it still says what I wanted it to say. Other than cluttering up this thread, your effect has been negligible under your own measure of success. If I wanted to, I could probably get all that irrelevance cleared out of here, so as to improve the effectiveness of the thread, and thus the board. One still hopes you might do that yourself.


Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 144
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
But I have got my way. I haven't taken a blind bit of notice of your feedback, and neither has anyone else. The content is still where I placed it, and it still says what I wanted it to say. Other than cluttering up this thread, your effect has been negligible under your own measure of success. If I wanted to, I could probably get all that irrelevance cleared out of here, so as to improve the effectiveness of the thread, and thus the board. One still hopes you might do that yourself.

Ah, I see. You view this as a sort of contest in which the winner gets their way by having the loser's comments actually deleted from the board. What an astonishingly impoverished view -- it reminds me of, let me think, an MMOPRG in which people compete to delete their enemies text -- ah, yes, that's it -- Wikipedia. As for the implied menace of "I could probably get all that irrelevance cleared out of here", well, to quote the classics, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk?


Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:52 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
But I have got my way. I haven't taken a blind bit of notice of your feedback, and neither has anyone else. The content is still where I placed it, and it still says what I wanted it to say. Other than cluttering up this thread, your effect has been negligible under your own measure of success. If I wanted to, I could probably get all that irrelevance cleared out of here, so as to improve the effectiveness of the thread, and thus the board. One still hopes you might do that yourself.

Ah, I see. You view this as a sort of contest in which the winner gets their way by having the loser's comments actually deleted from the board. What an astonishingly impoverished view -- it reminds me of, let me think, an MMOPRG in which people compete to delete their enemies text -- ah, yes, that's it -- Wikipedia. As for the implied menace of "I could probably get all that irrelevance cleared out of here", well, to quote the classics, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk?
Another assumption. I could have meant moved to its own thread. You might have spotted that, even realised that would be my likely meaning, albeit said not very nicely, if you could keep it straight in your head what you've actually seen me say and do, and what you invent in these fantasies of yours. You frankly see nothing you don't want to see, it's kind of your issue. And that is where the true comparison to the worst Wikipedia has to offer really is here.


Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 144
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Another assumption. I could have meant moved to its own thread. You might have spotted that, even realised that would be my likely meaning, albeit said not very nicely[...]

You could have meant all sorts of things. I responded to what you wrote. What I see here is you allowing your own angry self of self-righteous victimhood to lead you into the belief that we should all spend our valuable time on the exegesis of your tirades so as to appreciate their full flavour, like the complex flavours in a fine wine. Well, you need to understand that if you aren't capable of expressing yourself clearly and succinctly, the rest of the world isn't going to trouble to disentangle your convoluted complaints about people here, people on other boards, and people on Wikipedia. It seems the only response you are capable of hearing is to agree with everything you say without reservation: and your inability to engage with the slightest disagreement is getting in the way of your being an effective or useful critic, which you have been at times.


Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:13 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Another assumption. I could have meant moved to its own thread. You might have spotted that, even realised that would be my likely meaning, albeit said not very nicely[...]

You could have meant all sorts of things. I responded to what you wrote. What I see here is you allowing your own angry self of self-righteous victimhood to lead you into the belief that we should all spend our valuable time on the exegesis of your tirades so as to appreciate their full flavour, like the complex flavours in a fine wine. Well, you need to understand that if you aren't capable of expressing yourself clearly and succinctly, the rest of the world isn't going to trouble to disentangle your convoluted complaints about people here, people on other boards, and people on Wikipedia. It seems the only response you are capable of hearing is to agree with everything you say without reservation: and your inability to engage with the slightest disagreement is getting in the way of your being an effective or useful critic, which you have been at times.
You responded to what you thought I wrote, in the process happily discarding both an obvious alternative meaning, and years of evidence that I am not the sort of person who has ever advocated simply dumping stuff from forums, like some precious fuck. Everything else stems from that faulty assumption, that rank ignorance of who you are talking to, that arrogant assumption that bleeds through everything you say. It is tiresome to be lectured by someone who is in no position to be giving lectures. I am quite sure the rest of the world doesn't give rat's ass about my issues with the cowards of Wikipediocracy. That is why I am not here writing this stuff for the benefit of the entire world. You came into this thread assuming I was, and in your arrogance, we are still here, still watching you push that rock up that hill.


Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 144
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
[...] years of evidence that I am not the sort of person who has ever [...]

If your chosen communication style requires your readers to have read your entire oeuvre in order to understand your great thoughts, then you need to know that it does not, can not, and will not work.


Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:56 pm
Posts: 144
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
I am quite sure the rest of the world doesn't give rat's ass about my issues with the cowards of Wikipediocracy. That is why I am not here writing this stuff for the benefit of the entire world.

Then in all seriousness I ask what your intention was in starting this thread on The cowards of Wikipediocracy, now running to 66 posts, many by your good self? For whose benefit are you writing this stuff?


Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 636
Reply with quote
Well, I asked Jack for acces to Wikipediocrazy, and he granted it me. But I never had any conflict with the management there.
And not to post on a regulair base, but just to have the possibility to say something if I want to say something, and not to get in of all kind of confrontations with users there.
Don't forget I was a user on WPNL. and never on other Wiki's or Common or Meta.
Natuur12 kicked me on the world wiki podium, I was never looking for it or interested in it, and on WPNL I was always a rather moderated user. Never involved in edit wars, my articles where always accepted without any discusion, with many user I had a rather good relation.
It was only a very small, in that time powerful group what wanted to get ride of me, and I don't even think they had the support of the rest of the community.

_________________
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


Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:27 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
[...] years of evidence that I am not the sort of person who has ever [...]

If your chosen communication style requires your readers to have read your entire oeuvre in order to understand your great thoughts, then you need to know that it does not, can not, and will not work.
Since that is not my requirement of expectation, you having yet again decided to assume, the advice that stems from it is, as usual, pointless.


Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:14 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 630
Reply with quote
AndrewForson wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
I am quite sure the rest of the world doesn't give rat's ass about my issues with the cowards of Wikipediocracy. That is why I am not here writing this stuff for the benefit of the entire world.

Then in all seriousness I ask what your intention was in starting this thread on The cowards of Wikipediocracy, now running to 66 posts, many by your good self? For whose benefit are you writing this stuff?
Myself, other people misled by Zoloft, others still who post there and encounter the same problems, and the cowards themselves.

Reading back, I was quite angry when I began it. Now, I'm not so angry, but the intended purpose remains. For their rank cowardice, these people do not deserve a quiet life. Every time they say something ill-informed or just plain ridiculous, while masquerading as people with some knowledge of insight on matters Wikipedia, I am going to remind them I did not lose the ability to point out their erors, failings and general lack of character, just by being banned from their forum. All they gained with their whining, is a Safe Space where they can be protected from criticism.

As should be obvious, one of the main purposes of this board is to point out why many Wikipedia critics suck. This thread achieves that aim. If you disagree, you can of course try to defend them on any of the specific points raised. You seem to like impossible challenges.

One thing is for certain, the cowardly pricks aren't going to find any courage and post here in their own defence any time soon.

Since you like to focus on effects, well, have you noticed the cowards named here have either markedly reduced their posting, if not left that forum completely, since it was begun. I like it to think I had some part in that. I like to remind them they claimed my presence was making them feel too sad to post, or interacting with me was reducing their ability to post top quality criticism. I like to remind Zoloft that was a lie, a product of his mistake in making his board feel like a friendly and accommodating place for active Wikipedians, and disgruntled Wikipedians, and for rewarding them when they behave like Wikipedians, as they are bound to do. He too has miraculously found something better to do with his life than be continuously reminded what he has done to the cause of Wikipedia criticism. I suspect you'll not find anyone here lamenting that.

This is what I do. It is effective. It is worthwhile. To people who are serious, genuine, Wikipedia critics, at least.


Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:38 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  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.