Suckswatch

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
Dysklyver
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:10 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Dysklyver » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:44 am

It's a good place for serious criticism and also good if you have things that are not so polite to say about Wikipedia in general. :)
Editor of the The Wiki Cabal. I live at www.wiki.org.uk.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Renée Bagslint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:11 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:44 am
It's a good place for serious criticism [...]
Could you link to, say, five pieces of serious criticism to support your case?

User avatar
Dysklyver
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:10 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:48 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:11 pm
Dysklyver wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:44 am
It's a good place for serious criticism [...]
Could you link to, say, five pieces of serious criticism to support your case?
1. Wikipedians argue over bus routes for years: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=13&t=785
2. Extensive coverage of the Micheal Hardy issue: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=794
3. A number of valid points on paid editing: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... ?f=13&t=11
4. Why the CC-BY license is not all it seems: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=22&t=680
5. Detailed coverage of the daily mail ban: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=463

There is also the blog, the content of which is mostly good. https://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/

But as in my previous post, you need to be aware it's not so polite.
Editor of the The Wiki Cabal. I live at www.wiki.org.uk.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:40 am

Dysklyver wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:48 pm
5. Detailed coverage of the daily mail ban: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=463
I can definitely appreciate the fact WS1 and now WS2 have covered this aspect pretty heavily from a critical perspective, unlike WO where Wikipedia banning press outlets its users didn't like was lauded as a great step because they didn't like those outlets either. However, given CrowsNest has a habit of long-winded critiques, it is not particularly easy for me to asses how much quality criticism is being presented over on that site as he dominates a lot of threads. Only useful stuff I have seen on the blog to my recollection have been the reviews of Wikipedia history.

Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:48 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:40 am
unlike WO where Wikipedia banning press outlets its users didn't like was lauded as a great step because they didn't like those outlets either.
That pretty much sums up today's Wikipediocracy, which exists primarily to support Wikipedia against Trump, Breitbart, Brexit, etc. Thing is, Wikipedia doesn't need the help; Wikipediocracy is not going to make them any more partisan and fanatical than they already are. At best they are a placeholder which hinders actual criticism from gaining traction. Maybe marginally useful to the cause, then, but I'd be ashamed to be a placeholder.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by EarlStatler » Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:48 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:48 pm
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:11 pm
Dysklyver wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:44 am
It's a good place for serious criticism [...]
Could you link to, say, five pieces of serious criticism to support your case?
1. Wikipedians argue over bus routes for years: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=13&t=785
2. Extensive coverage of the Micheal Hardy issue: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=794
3. A number of valid points on paid editing: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... ?f=13&t=11
4. Why the CC-BY license is not all it seems: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=22&t=680
5. Detailed coverage of the daily mail ban: https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=11&t=463

There is also the blog, the content of which is mostly good. https://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/

But as in my previous post, you need to be aware it's not so polite.
I agree arthur. Look, much of what I wrote in the past years was giving information, explaining things. How Europe is constituted, explaining what is the different in mentality is, how fragmented and divided Europe is, the complete different man-woman relation, the weird Code Napoleon legal system, the hidden communism in our society, that kind of thinks. That is what I have tried to made clear. Why a wiki mouvement ends op in trolling in Europe, because it can't fly.

And that is a long term investment and is much more effective than just shouting and saying something. Because I think the most stupid things of WMF is just because of not knowing, not to do something bad. And trusting the wrong people.
I am lost for WMF, I get on without WMF. My odds are stacked, I go on with Everipedia. But I wanted to clear things out.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:24 pm

Credit where it is due. CN's Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia looks pretty good.

Proabivouac
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Suckswatch

Post by Proabivouac » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:52 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:24 pm
Credit where it is due. CN's Ten things you probably didn't know about Wikipedia looks pretty good.
Agreed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest