View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:58 am

Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
First blog post in eight months 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1803
Reply with quote
Same author, unsurprisingly. ... imes-mean/

Wikipedia’s treatment of academics: shallow, distorted and sometimes mean

by Kingsindian

A bit of an odd read, examining the case of Jacob Barnett. Readers might struggle to reconcile this statement.....
This blog post will look at the story, which sheds some light on how Wikipedia functions (or not) in matters of science, academics and biographies of living people
....with the actual contents, which don't really do that. That promised too much, from what is essentially the write-up of the ebb and flow of the deletion debates, as they flip flopped in the usual way these cases do where there's no good answer to the question, why is this person being written about? Therefore, why should Wikipedia care they're being written about, and how should they write it up if they do.

He wrongly asserts that a real encyclopedia would be interested in his academic achievements, or that this case is relevant to Wikipedia because of it's role in teaching/science. He wrongly asserts this was a situation where expert input would have helped. It would not. You do not need expertise to answer the questions he posed, namely what is his significance to his field. It is merely difficult.

He's completely missed the real failing of Wikipedia here. There should ultimately be no difficulty for Wikipedia in writing about child prodigies. And yet they did indeed have great difficulty here, ultimately choosing the option they often do in difficult cases, to pretend it is impossible, as a way to hide the embarrassing truth, that they just can't do it.

There are so few child prodigies, even in a volunteer project, people should be falling over themselves to do the difficult work of assessing their importance, while the rest can do the easy work of writing about them on human interest level. He wrongly asserts it is an either/or situation, when this is a false dichotomy borne of Wikipedia's own internal dysfunction and competing editing philosophies.

Still, it was something to read that sort of points readers into an area where Wikipedia does badly. So.....C minus? Too generous, methinks.

Disappointing that these blog posts don't give us a window into the contemporary comments of the members of Wikipediocracy on the subject. Understandable though, as it would show quite well that they are just as incapable as the Wikpediots in dealing with such hard cases in a way that fulfils the promise of Wikipedia of being an encyclopedia for the modern age. Because they are, by and large, Wikipediots, and as such, have nothing to say except the same crap you could find in the debates he has highlighted here.

Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:40 pm
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1803
Reply with quote
Right on cue......
Ming wrote:
WP's problem in this comes out of a more general problem of too many "editors" who do not understand how to take newspapers and other such short-turnaround media as sources. People have figured out that tabloid-ish rags like the Daily Mail publish a lot of stuff that isn't trustworthy, but they tend to think of the New York Times as an authoritative and secondary source, when a lot of the material is really primary sourcing on the one hand, and inadequately checked on the other.
This is the same stupid fuck who couldn't get his head around why there's a difference between a newspaper report which says someone did a racist thing, and someone is known for being racist. Perfectly happy give the Wikipedians a free pass on that sort of failure to understand the media, or what their role is as writers of a tertiary source. He probably even went all in on the Mail hating campaign too, it would certainly fit his politics. The Wikipeidans manifestly not having a clue how the press works is one of the main reasons why that ban is such a joke, and yet a pathetic little snowflake like him is unlikely to ever find the guts to say it, lest he be seen to be speaking up for the enemy.
AndyTheGimp wrote:
The deletion was entirely appropriate. Assuming Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a compendium of regurgitated media hype.Child prodigies are ten a penny, and precious few actually achieve anything of lasting significance.
This will be backed by the same level of knowledge and insight that saw him claim it is impossible to write a filter that disallows "Anna-Christina Schwartz" and variants, but allows "Alexander & Anna Schwartz Farm". Too stupid to even know he's stupid, and a whiny little bitch with it.
iii wrote:
I agree that this piece is not about Wikipedia's treatment of academics. But it's also not about Wikipedia's treatment of prodigies. It's about Wikipedia's treatment of 15-minutes-of-fame children.
Bennet is not a fifteen minutes of fame case, not even close. Wikipedia can't handle those either, but it doesn't take them six years to figure out what to do. Did this fucker even read the blog post he is critiquing? Fuuuuuck. Although his attitude probably stems from the fact he's Joshua P. Schroeder, who, as a skeptic, will have strong views on whether or not Bennet deserves to be noted or not.

This is the standout best......
I don't think that the title is right. The blog is basically about one PhD student, arguably not an academic and certainly very atypical. I was expecting a blog about either the scanty tratment of academics (there are so many who should have articles, or at least better articlea) or the way that academics who edit Wikipedia are treated.
This from the guy who is capable of this level of epic failure...... ... =14&t=8991
Poetlister wrote:
I shall now withdraw and let him believe that he has won the argument.
I don't believe it, I know it. I fucking beat him so hard, he cried all the way to mommy. It is a theme with these fuckers, they simply cannot stand to lose an argument, much less be shown to be fools.

It would be embarrassing to let that particular fool within a million miles of the subject of Wikipedia and academia. Not that he has ever written a blog post in his life. He can barely write more than a paragraph, the dumb motherfucker.

Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:38 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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.