At least with Wikipedia, it's a pet issue, not all reality.
I don't see why a fact like that should appear on Wikipedia, as it's crude and irrelevant to anything.
I just thought of something bad that would get deleted even if it was true. I'm not saying it actually is true.
The article itself is rather troubling. But then I started reading the comments, and there is a Wikirepresentative defending Wikipedia and arguing, among other things, that "there are *no* secret mailing list(s) used by top administrators to silence inconvenient voices". Apparently, someone also linked to this Reg page in the Wikipedia's "criticism of Wikipedia" article, only to have the link deleted right away and be subject to a 24-hour temp ban.
I'm getting the impression that they're not so much a group of power-hungry nerds as a group of powerless frothing-at-the-mouth kids with delusions of grandeur. They'll come crashing down soon enough.
Anyway, I'm rather happy that my "gotta contribute to wikipedia!" phase is long over. I only have a handful of articles I did back then that I still keep an eye on for sentimental reasons.
I think the biggest selling point for humour in the first is the use of terminology I've never been exposed to before, which makes it hillarious.
"A ripened sock".
*giggle*
It's like an A&E "Behind the Scenes" special, where a light is shon on the seemy underbelly of a broadway musical or something.
The Internet(tm): Now with a Special Features section!
Seriously, what the fuck was with the diction in that email? A "ripened sock"? What does that even mean?
A sock puppet is an account (usually one of many) some people use to make it look like more editors feel a certain way about some issue than really do. They're also used like alts can be here to circumvent bans and so forth.
Sock is the short form of that, and I guess a 'ripened' sock is one that's been prepared for a certain use.
The troubling thing about all the scandals this year (and there have been a lot) is that the leadership seems to have learned nothing from them. Still, I find the fact that the "secret list" was hosted on Wikia could be the beginning of the end to be very funny.
(How does that work? Simple - there needs to be a tightly defined Chinese wall between the for-profit Wikia and the non-profit Wikimedia (which is who runs Wikipedia). If Wikia and Wikimedia can freely trade assets and such, then they're really the same entity, which means Wikimedia's non-profit status goes bye-bye.)
AngelHedgie, you seem to keep yourself pretty informed about the issues and workings of Wikipedia (you've started a couple of threads whenever "scandals" break out, and you've had a few posts in others' threads about Wikipedia). You consistently seem to think Jimbo Wales's involvement (at least in his current position) is detrimental and it should have been ceded a while ago, allowing someone else to take over. I don't disagree with this; I mean, why not? Now that it has grown to be the size that it is, it wouldn't be unreasonable if he wanted to step down and let someone else handle it.
This point of view is not unique to you, nor did I first hear it from you. There are lots of others saying the same thing and even more people who are more passionate about his involvement and his personal character in general, but this is the part I don't get.
I mean, there is a general sense that his leadership involves obvious, widespread corruption (as corrupt as an online community with users who take things really seriously could be), but I'm not seeing it. I am aware of the Larry Sanger issue and decided long ago--when Wikpedia was first taking off, but just before all of the hard-hitting journalism and OMG SCANDAL shit--that I sided with the Larry argument. But, really, this didn't paint Jimbo as badly in my eyes as some have claimed. Honestly, that type of thing is the least I expect to happen with these circumstances. It could be like the Wozniak-Jobs scenario where one guy, for whatever reason, gets all the "glory," or it could be one of those scenarios where some dick came along trying to take more credit than they deserve. But even if it is akin to the Wozniak-Jobs thing, it's not that big of a deal. Anyone who knows what they are talking about knows how things actually went down and where credit should be given.
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
The hate comes from the founder of the project ignoring the rules of his own project just to dick around. If it (a) wasn't the goddamn founder, (2) was within the rules, or (iii) was for a purpose instead of a stupid practical joke, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating. As it is, it's as if Jimbo doesn't take his own fucking project seriously, which makes it hard for (for instance) me to take seriously.
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
The hate comes from the founder of the project ignoring the rules of his own project just to dick around. If it (a) wasn't the goddamn founder, (2) was within the rules, or (iii) was for a purpose instead of a stupid practical joke, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating. As it is, it's as if Jimbo doesn't take his own fucking project seriously, which makes it hard for (for instance) me to take seriously.
This. I understand this. This is what I mean. This is a pretty common viewpoint and it always gets brought up. But again, where is this hate coming from?
The citation needed joke was funny on xkcd, but it's been overrused by now.
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
The hate comes from the founder of the project ignoring the rules of his own project just to dick around. If it (a) wasn't the goddamn founder, (2) was within the rules, or (iii) was for a purpose instead of a stupid practical joke, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating. As it is, it's as if Jimbo doesn't take his own fucking project seriously, which makes it hard for (for instance) me to take seriously.
This. I understand this. This is what I mean. This is a pretty common viewpoint and it always gets brought up. But again, where is this hate coming from?
The citation needed joke was funny on xkcd, but it's been overrused by now.
Well, because I want to like Wikipedia. It's a pretty awesome idea, and it's produced a pretty decent reference for what it started out with, but it's never going to get better than it currently is if the problems inherent in the current system never get fixed.
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
The hate comes from the founder of the project ignoring the rules of his own project just to dick around. If it (a) wasn't the goddamn founder, (2) was within the rules, or (iii) was for a purpose instead of a stupid practical joke, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating. As it is, it's as if Jimbo doesn't take his own fucking project seriously, which makes it hard for (for instance) me to take seriously.
This. I understand this. This is what I mean. This is a pretty common viewpoint and it always gets brought up. But again, where is this hate coming from?
The citation needed joke was funny on xkcd, but it's been overrused by now.
No one likes to see a really great idea ruined by the ego, favoritism, and narrowmindedness of its creator. See also: George Lucas.
The problem with Jimbo is that he's proven, over and over, that he's really not suited for the administration of an academic project. Over the course of this year, we've seen him defend academic fraud, lack of transparency, unofficial channels used to make official decisions - and that's just looking at the scandals. He's allowed favoritism and ego to take the place of sound judgment, and this has weakened Wikipedia. We don't hate Jimbo, we just want him to look at the damage he's doing, and either fix it, or step aside for someone who will.
Posts
What's up with that.
I just thought of something bad that would get deleted even if it was true. I'm not saying it actually is true.
I'm getting the impression that they're not so much a group of power-hungry nerds as a group of powerless frothing-at-the-mouth kids with delusions of grandeur. They'll come crashing down soon enough.
Anyway, I'm rather happy that my "gotta contribute to wikipedia!" phase is long over. I only have a handful of articles I did back then that I still keep an eye on for sentimental reasons.
Seriously, what the fuck was with the diction in that email? A "ripened sock"? What does that even mean?
A sock puppet is an account (usually one of many) some people use to make it look like more editors feel a certain way about some issue than really do. They're also used like alts can be here to circumvent bans and so forth.
Sock is the short form of that, and I guess a 'ripened' sock is one that's been prepared for a certain use.
(How does that work? Simple - there needs to be a tightly defined Chinese wall between the for-profit Wikia and the non-profit Wikimedia (which is who runs Wikipedia). If Wikia and Wikimedia can freely trade assets and such, then they're really the same entity, which means Wikimedia's non-profit status goes bye-bye.)
This point of view is not unique to you, nor did I first hear it from you. There are lots of others saying the same thing and even more people who are more passionate about his involvement and his personal character in general, but this is the part I don't get.
I mean, there is a general sense that his leadership involves obvious, widespread corruption (as corrupt as an online community with users who take things really seriously could be), but I'm not seeing it. I am aware of the Larry Sanger issue and decided long ago--when Wikpedia was first taking off, but just before all of the hard-hitting journalism and OMG SCANDAL shit--that I sided with the Larry argument. But, really, this didn't paint Jimbo as badly in my eyes as some have claimed. Honestly, that type of thing is the least I expect to happen with these circumstances. It could be like the Wozniak-Jobs scenario where one guy, for whatever reason, gets all the "glory," or it could be one of those scenarios where some dick came along trying to take more credit than they deserve. But even if it is akin to the Wozniak-Jobs thing, it's not that big of a deal. Anyone who knows what they are talking about knows how things actually went down and where credit should be given.
I've also read about the birthdate thing, but that doesn't really say "corruption's afoot" as much as it's just . . . bizarre. So where's the hate coming from?
The hate comes from the founder of the project ignoring the rules of his own project just to dick around. If it (a) wasn't the goddamn founder, (2) was within the rules, or (iii) was for a purpose instead of a stupid practical joke, it wouldn't be nearly as frustrating. As it is, it's as if Jimbo doesn't take his own fucking project seriously, which makes it hard for (for instance) me to take seriously.
This. I understand this. This is what I mean. This is a pretty common viewpoint and it always gets brought up. But again, where is this hate coming from?
The citation needed joke was funny on xkcd, but it's been overrused by now.
Well, because I want to like Wikipedia. It's a pretty awesome idea, and it's produced a pretty decent reference for what it started out with, but it's never going to get better than it currently is if the problems inherent in the current system never get fixed.