Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:51 am

Gertsmann wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:13 am
Rogol is not Lister. New account Newsfeed is.

PL is still nicking names and playing games across the web. They've been at it forever.
A warm welcome to Gertsmann!

Tell us more.

Gertsmann
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:01 am

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Gertsmann » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:58 am

Hi.

Rogol is.... well, think back to another of the HIve's famous impersonators.

5xqhq
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by 5xqhq » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:53 pm

Gertsmann wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:58 am
Hi.
Rogol is.... well, think back to another of the HIve's famous impersonators.
Go on :-)

Gertsmann
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:01 am

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Gertsmann » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:58 pm

13th.jpg

Gertsmann
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:01 am

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Gertsmann » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:14 pm

Here? At a french maids finishing school? At three o'clock in the morning? With my reputation? Bingo!

5xqhq
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by 5xqhq » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:53 pm

Gertsmann wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:58 pm
13th.jpg
Another washed up Brit comic playing at faux nobility stumbles into the big tent.

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:42 am

5xqhq wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:53 pm
Gertsmann wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:58 pm
13th.jpg
Another washed up Brit comic playing at faux nobility stumbles into the big tent.
This mode of discussion is too peripatetic to be useful to most readers.

One theory about why Wikipedia criticism is in such a sorry state is because criticism sites are busy supressing it and making posters worry that they'll be banned if they engage in it. It's annoying when people beat around the bush and It does the wider world no good if only a few insiders manage to understand what is finally meant. This is an excellent example of why the forum rules need to be amended if we're going to get anywhere. It's especially true as the information here and elsewhere is being censored from the other site as well.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:31 pm

I agree. I've been doing this ten years and I barely have any clue wtf you guys are talking about.

I'm presuming someone thinks they have personal information about Rogol and that he is a well-known player on Wikipedia. Meaning, like a hundred or so hardcore Wikipedia power users around the world would care who he is.

Do I have it right?

5xqhq
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by 5xqhq » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:44 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:42 am
This mode of discussion is too peripatetic to be useful to most readers.

One theory about why Wikipedia criticism is in such a sorry state is because criticism sites are busy supressing it and making posters worry that they'll be banned if they engage in it. It's annoying when people beat around the bush and It does the wider world no good if only a few insiders manage to understand what is finally meant. This is an excellent example of why the forum rules need to be amended if we're going to get anywhere. It's especially true as the information here and elsewhere is being censored from the other site as well.
No serious Wikipedia criticism can take place on fora where

a) multiple sockpuppet trolls are set up to hijack/derail serious criticsm,
b) the owners/mods are interested in lulz and their own interests,
c) the members mainly use the place to gripe about why they were (unfairly) banned by admin/arb X over at WP
d) the members are not 'ideologically' compatible.

Returning to topic

i) the term 'failure' in the subject line is ill-defined (and ill advised)
ii) the forum rules definitely need to be changed to bring about transparency over reasons for banning of members / censorship of posts,
iii) inside baseball must be firmly discouraged if these fora are to be relevant to the next generation of 'critics'.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Wikipediocracy's failure is a joy to watch

Post by Auggie » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:30 pm

Hello 5xq and welcome. As for your first section, we know we're not perfect. Feel free to take suggestions for improvement to our Wiki Review Review subforum.

As for this thread:

- "failure" - I'm not interested in a semantic discussion about the word "failure". At the time this thread started back on ProBoards, I had been under a pointless spite ban and was finding great mirth in watching the Wikipediocracy membership dwindle and the action on the active topics page slowing down to a trickle. I agree it's probably not the most productive attitude and probably not appropriate anymore given the recent détente, but on the other hand it's just a forum thread. Why so serious?

- banning and censorship here - again I think you're referring to our policy regarding doxing. If it is so onerous for you, start your own blog or something. Personally, I really don't care to obsess about individual Wikipedians or critics and find it a huge distraction from the real issues.

- Inside baseball. Sometimes it's fun and a good way to keep the forum active. I don't think it's a problem as long as it doesn't infest every thread or make it impossible for outsiders to understand the messages. The "Meta" forum is good place for outsiders to get an idea of the big picture. Another thing members here can do is start threads with a lengthy first post stating what they think is important and what they hope to read in follow-up posts. No guarantee other members will stick to the point but that way you can control how the content you create appears on Google.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests