"Cyberbullying" topic -> Crowdsourcing will save us

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh, also, I wanted to mention If you get a chance to take Pranayama go for it. It's kinda an overlooked, hidden jewel that most yoga places don't teach. I'm certain that 560 and Luke would benefit immensely.

[lilburne]

Yawn. I'm a boring subject matter and I fail to see how this has anything to do with social media replacing government. Then I fail to see how my support of the idea that social media *could* replace government has anything to do with being cyberbullied on the Sheldrake page.

Social media has the attention span of a goldfish. It jumps from 'issue' to 'issue' on a weekly basis and has no consistent logic. Social media was seen at its best after the Boston marathon bombs.

Social media is 911Truthers, Birthers, Chemtrails, and anti-vax.

[TungstenCarbide]

[560wasbullied]

Yawn. I'm a boring subject matter and I fail to see how this has anything to do with social media replacing government. Then I fail to see how my support of the idea that social media *could* replace government has anything to do with being cyberbullied on the Sheldrake page.

Social media has the attention span of a goldfish. It jumps from 'issue' to 'issue' on a weekly basis and has no consistent logic. Social media was seen at its best after the Boston marathon bombs.

Social media is 911Truthers, Birthers, Chemtrails, and anti-vax.

Well you have a very narrow definition of social media, and I have a broader definition of social media. Wiki's are also social media, as well as Google search, which depends upon community support for ranking. Youtube is also social media, as well as this forum. Also now social media has taken to the mobile web. Bit Coin is now a 'social' currency comprised of only one thing, social media. The theme of social media in this usage is collective and collaborative with a tendency to lean towards transparency on the one hand but anonymity on the other. Those qualities are embedded into the medium itself. There are permutations of social media that have not yet even emerged.

If you think social media is just your facebook wall - then your probably not going to get an idea of what this is about.

If you don't think that at somepoint, especially when the youngest generation now comes to power, that government will adopt new and more efficient technologies and the principles that are inherent to them then I don't believe you've really thought this through.

[lilburne]

Politics degenerated when the party systems became corporate. If young people engage in politics it is on single issues, there is no longer any culture of active participation in informed debate at any level that will challenge the state. Whilst they are sat at home or in the pub tweeting, facebooking, gaming, and playing wikipedia they are a danger to no vested interests at all.

[560wasbullied]

Politics degenerated when the party systems became corporate. If young people engage in politics it is on single issues, there is no longer any culture of active participation in informed debate at any level that will challenge the state. Whilst they are sat at home or in the pub tweeting, facebooking, gaming, and playing wikipedia they are a danger to no vested interests at all.

Politics becomes degenerated with the process becomes manipulative and deceptive - as that is the pattern for human nature and social groups. Any group. Nothing magical happens when all of a sudden people are in a 'corporate' environment. Social Media more than any other medium has the potential not to change politics, but change the environment politics takes place inside of. People will still be assholes. There will still be power coups and power grabs - the core concept though is that if the environment changes for politics, politics will change by necessity and what once worked, does not previously.

[Sweet Revenge]

If you don't think that at somepoint, especially when the youngest generation now comes to power, that government will adopt new and more efficient technologies and the principles that are inherent to them then I don't believe you've really thought this through.

If you think governments aren't efficient now it's because you're confusing their stated goals with their actual goals, which they attain hyperefficiently.

Government exists to provide the rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would despoil the property of the rich, pace Orwell, and to transfer money to their sponsors. Do you dispute the ability of governments to do these things?

Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is going to keep mobs of hungry unemployed homeless people out of his mansion by unfriending them? Do you think they're going to care about their online reputations?

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

[DanMurphy]

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

Ah yes. Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines. How glorious it was.

[lilburne]

Politics becomes degenerated with the process becomes manipulative and deceptive - as that is the pattern for human nature and social groups. Any group. Nothing magical happens when all of a sudden people are in a 'corporate' environment. Social Media more than any other medium has the potential not to change politics, but change the environment politics takes place inside of. People will still be assholes. There will still be power coups and power grabs - the core concept though is that if the environment changes for politics, politics will change by necessity and what once worked, does not previously.

Social media is one great wankfest. Take a look on FB where the users there are sold for pennies each day. Where there are countless user rebellions, that no matter how egregious the site owners behave, peters out within a week or two. Nothing is ultimately reverted it all moves along apace, and the social outrage focus on something else. All of these tech companies know this, FB, Twitter, Google, Apple, Yahoo, even WP. You promise the proles you'll look into it, then shut the fuck up and do nothing. Within a few days the protest will resolved down to a handful of users.

You only get change within the system when you have burning government buildings, and then the change is rarely what you hoped for.

Otherwise you can effect changes locally by organizing and taking control. That means getting outside and away from the 'social media', because whilst you are 'social mediaing' you ain't changing a fucking thing. Change involves taking something in the real world by the throat and throttling it.

[DanMurphy]

This brings me back to Egypt. Many people, me included, believe that Mubarak's biggest tactical mistake in his final weeks was turning off the internet on Jan. 28. It brought the Hezb al-Kanabah ("The Couch Party") out to the streets. Until then they'd been staying at home playing with twitter and Facebook.

The deep state has learned from its mistakes and the "revolutionary youth" are finished. God bless Egypt. They're going to need it.

[560wasbullied]

If you don't think that at somepoint, especially when the youngest generation now comes to power, that government will adopt new and more efficient technologies and the principles that are inherent to them then I don't believe you've really thought this through.

If you think governments aren't efficient now it's because you're confusing their stated goals with their actual goals, which they attain hyperefficiently.

Government exists to provide the rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would despoil the property of the rich, pace Orwell, and to transfer money to their sponsors. Do you dispute the ability of governments to do these things?

Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is going to keep mobs of hungry unemployed homeless people out of his mansion by unfriending them? Do you think they're going to care about their online reputations?

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

I really wish you would try to 'unnarrow' your view of what social media is, and simplify your definition of what government is.

Government is just human administration. THere are different forms of government that decide who gets to administer what, but at the end of the day, that's all governments do. anything that needs administration needs consensus. right now what corrupts consensus is group think.

social media is just an environment for communication. it's not a source of power - it's how communication, and therefore consensus can be reached.

Courts of law, congress, the senate do not have gun battles. they have attorneys, gavels, fax machines and printers. and they argue in those mediums to find consensus on laws. the medium is easy to corrupt and any irrational consideration can become law and therefore enforceable.

The problem is not government or corporations. the problem is that human beings can be irrational, selfish, and delusional.

the idea is that if we change the environment for human discussion, then human behaviors will change as a result.

[560wasbullied]

Social media is one great wankfest. Take a look on FB where the users there are sold for pennies each day. Where there are countless user rebellions, that no matter how egregious the site owners behave, peters out within a week or two. Nothing is ultimately reverted it all moves along apace, and the social outrage focus on something else. All of these tech companies know this, FB, Twitter, Google, Apple, Yahoo, even WP. You promise the proles you'll look into it, then shut the fuck up and do nothing. Within a few days the protest will resolved down to a handful of users.

again, you're describing social media today and using FB as an example. I'm describing something that in principle can be built and eventually will evolve

You only get change within the system when you have burning government buildings, and then the change is rarely what you hoped for.

Bullshit. we have government change all the time. it's called congress and the senate. it changes every 2 to 4 years. They enact laws. The process with which those laws are enacted by are irrational.

Otherwise you can effect changes locally by organizing and taking control. That means getting outside and away from the 'social media', because whilst you are 'social mediaing' you ain't changing a fucking thing. Change involves taking something in the real world by the throat and throttling it.

yeah, well then why are you wasting your time talking to me about this on a social media discussion forum? If you believe what you're saying, why don't you just send me that thought on a postcard?

[560wasbullied]

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

We are already crowdsourcing our own solutions in many ways where we do not need to rely on government. that's the point your also missing.

Overstock.com just decided to accept bitcoins. email already replaced the postage stamp. collective intelligence is 'smart' to provide it's own solutions to problems that previously we would need gov structures to enforce

[Zoloft]

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

We are already crowdsourcing our own solutions in many ways where we do not need to rely on government. that's the point your also missing.

Overstock.com just decided to accept bitcoins. email already replaced the postage stamp. collective intelligence is 'smart' to provide it's own solutions to problems that previously we would need gov structures to enforce

Email is not crowdsourcing.

[Sweet Revenge]

If you don't think that at somepoint, especially when the youngest generation now comes to power, that government will adopt new and more efficient technologies and the principles that are inherent to them then I don't believe you've really thought this through.

If you think governments aren't efficient now it's because you're confusing their stated goals with their actual goals, which they attain hyperefficiently.

Government exists to provide the rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would despoil the property of the rich, pace Orwell, and to transfer money to their sponsors. Do you dispute the ability of governments to do these things?

Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is going to keep mobs of hungry unemployed homeless people out of his mansion by unfriending them? Do you think they're going to care about their online reputations?

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

I really wish you would try to 'unnarrow' your view of what social media is, and simplify your definition of what government is.

I already way, way oversimplified it. But at the basis on all government is a legal monopoly on force. You can't administer force rationally through social media, although (thanks for the perfect example, Dan) you can administer it efficiently. Efficiency without rationality is terror. Hell, I'll Godwin myself preemptively and note that efficiency with rationality is terror in some cases too.

Government is just human administration. THere are different forms of government that decide who gets to administer what, but at the end of the day, that's all governments do. anything that needs administration needs consensus. right now what corrupts consensus is group think.

social media is just an environment for communication. it's not a source of power - it's how communication, and therefore consensus can be reached.

Anything that's not a source of power is not a foundation for government. There is no government without power. The need to control power in various ways is why there are governments.

Courts of law, congress, the senate do not have gun battles. they have attorneys, gavels, fax machines and printers. and they argue in those mediums to find consensus on laws. the medium is easy to corrupt and any irrational consideration can become law and therefore enforceable.

This is where you're very, very confused. At the back of all legal power is the power of violence. Think of Eisenhower enforcing Brown v. Board in Little Rock by federalizing the national guard on the positive side and Waco on the negative. How are you going to do administer force with social media? Think of any court order. If someone doesn't follow it, the guns come out eventually. It doesn't matter how rational or irrational the decision or by what method it was made. Without guns there is no government.

The problem is not government or corporations. the problem is that human beings can be irrational, selfish, and delusional.

the idea is that if we change the environment for human discussion, then human behaviors will change as a result.

This is what every deluded utopian since the beginning of time has thought. When they come into power it ends badly for everyone. Things are usually the way they are for very good reasons. It doesn't mean that they're right and it doesn't mean they can't be changed, but without understanding clearly why they are the way they are and that therefore there is no magic bullet, your simplistic solutions are a waste of time if you're just talking about them and a path to chaos and genocide if you get a chance to implement them.

I'll drop this on myself and then shut up:

[560wasbullied]

Or are we going to crowdsource police action too? That ought to be truly terrifying.

We are already crowdsourcing our own solutions in many ways where we do not need to rely on government. that's the point your also missing.

Overstock.com just decided to accept bitcoins. email already replaced the postage stamp. collective intelligence is 'smart' to provide it's own solutions to problems that previously we would need gov structures to enforce

Email is not crowdsourcing.

Email is essential for crowdsourcing and crowdsourcing would not exist without it. and the point is that email made the US postal service irrelevant in communicating with each other.

[560wasbullied]

But at the basis on all government is a legal monopoly on force. You can't administer force rationally through social media, although (thanks for the perfect example, Dan) you can administer it efficiently. Efficiency without rationality is terror. Hell, I'll Godwin myself preemptively and note that efficiency with rationality is terror in some cases too.

I did not say that social media would replace military might - I said social media would replace government as we know it today. Our gov is a republic. it is ruled by law. what creates those laws are not tanks or m80's, but legal language, discourse, ad hom and a gavel or two.

Anything that's not a source of power is not a foundation for government. There is no government without power. The need to control power in various ways is why there are governments.

We're not talking about the same things. I am talking about what gov's administer and how they come to administer them. force is there to support the rule of law, not write it or execute on it.

This is where you're very, very confused. At the back of all legal power is the power of violence. Think of Eisenhower enforcing Brown v. Board in Little Rock by federalizing the national guard on the positive side and Waco on the negative. How are you going to do administer force with social media? Think of any court order. If someone doesn't follow it, the guns come out eventually. It doesn't matter how rational or irrational the decision or by what method it was made. Without guns there is no government.

I'm not confused about that, I've considered it and it's not what I am talking about. I never said social media would replace military force. You have your own idea about what this idea is about. It's about how law is written, not enforced. How law is enforced however is also written into law.

This is what every deluded utopian since the beginning of time has thought.

perhaps, but to be fair, we have never had the technical capability until now either.

When they come into power it ends badly for everyone. Things are usually the way they are for very good reasons. It doesn't mean that they're right and it doesn't mean they can't be changed, but without understanding clearly why they are the way they are and that therefore there is no magic bullet, your simplistic solutions are a waste of time if you're just talking about them and a path to chaos and genocide if you get a chance to implement them.

I don't think using innovative technology and media for consensus building for critical decision making is either simplistic nor a waste of time, but I respect your right not to be interested in it.

I'll drop this on myself and then shut up:

Well it's the default defacto topic now. I actually assumed this forum was interested in discussing abuses on Wikipedia, but I prefer this subject matter anyhow

[DanMurphy]

I recommend this thread being moved into the "off topic" or "web 2.0" forums.

[EricBarbour]

I recommend this thread being moved into the "off topic" or "web 2.0" forums.

Personally I'd like to kill it off completely. But someone might object boo hoo.

[Vigilant]

Kill it completely. I'm pretty tired of this wanker.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm not confused about that, I've considered it and it's not what I am talking about. I never said social media would replace military force. You have your own idea about what this idea is about. It's about how law is written, not enforced. How law is enforced however is also written into law.

That's sort of emblematic of our problem here; when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning, you seem to have this tendency to tell the person you really mean something completely different and the other person is misconstruing you in some way. When it's pointed out to you that your being misconstrued might not be entirely the fault of the reader, but possibly yours for not being especially clear, you grow impatient and tell the person to simply take your word for it, as if the interpretation you want people to make is the only reasonable one and all others are foolish, etc., etc. Maybe these tactics are a requirement for people who advocate radical ideas, but this forum actually exists to advocate the preservation of certain traditions and standards - and such tactics do make it very difficult and frustrating to carry on a substantive conversation, which in turn leads to forum members calling for threads to be moved or closed.

It's possible that this was inevitable, given the way this all got started, and the nature of the underlying dispute. But it's still unfortunate... I've just seen too many people squander too much goodwill in too many similar ways.

[enwikibadscience]

I recommend this thread being moved into the "off topic" or "web 2.0" forums.

Personally I'd like to kill it off completely. But someone might object boo hoo.

Oh, please kill it. A Wikipediocracy bullied me thread can be opened up later. I will volunteer to be the bully.

[greyed.out.fields]

I recommend this thread being moved into the "off topic" or "web 2.0" forums.

Personally I'd like to kill it off completely. But someone might object boo hoo.

That's correct. I haven't even had the chance to mention other 4AD acts like The Breeders, This Mortal Coil and Cocteau Twins.
(A work colleague once described Cocteau Twins as sounding "like ABBA... on drugs".) I miss the 1990s.

[lilburne]

Social media is one great wankfest. Take a look on FB where the users there are sold for pennies each day. Where there are countless user rebellions, that no matter how egregious the site owners behave, peters out within a week or two. Nothing is ultimately reverted it all moves along apace, and the social outrage focus on something else. All of these tech companies know this, FB, Twitter, Google, Apple, Yahoo, even WP. You promise the proles you'll look into it, then shut the fuck up and do nothing. Within a few days the protest will resolved down to a handful of users.

again, you're describing social media today and using FB as an example. I'm describing something that in principle can be built and eventually will evolve

You only get change within the system when you have burning government buildings, and then the change is rarely what you hoped for.

Bullshit. we have government change all the time. it's called congress and the senate. it changes every 2 to 4 years. They enact laws. The process with which those laws are enacted by are irrational.

Oh you are taking about 'that' sort of change - how cute. Crowds are not rational, and as we have seen above they can be very easily manipulated by power structures.

No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in!

Back in 2007/8 when the sub-prime con came to light, we saw the biggest transfer of wealth from black Americans to corporate America since the ending of slavery. $billions were stolen from amongst the poorest in society. Social media got a number of people out to 'Occupy' parks and squares, but social media couldn't keep them there. In response to police with clubs and mace, it demonized the individuals, but completely missed apportioning responsibility to those that put those cops on the street in the first place. Meanwhile the financial system shut the fuck up for a few months, mutter mea culpa a few times and a year later were back to their old tricks, carrying on the same practices that had fucked everyone over in the first place. Social media moved onto to focus on twerking.

Mega tech corporations built through social media a protest movement (STOP SOPA) to protect their ill gotten profits from the exploitation of musicians, authors, film makers, and photographers. They managed to direct it for a few days in mid January 2012, by the time that mid-term elections came around those that had supported SOPA, were re-elected with increased majorities. The protest HAD not affected their electability at all.

Otherwise you can effect changes locally by organizing and taking control. That means getting outside and away from the 'social media', because whilst you are 'social mediaing' you ain't changing a fucking thing. Change involves taking something in the real world by the throat and throttling it.

yeah, well then why are you wasting your time talking to me about this on a social media discussion forum? If you believe what you're saying, why don't you just send me that thought on a postcard?

Because here I'm not engaging in social media, what I'm doing here in this thread is reconfiguring your synapses, through the medium of electromagnetic waves and quantum physics.

[Zoloft]

I'm getting that feeling...

OK.

Step one:

Move to the Web 2.0 subforum.

Step two:

Change title 'cause topic has drifted.

[Lukeno94]

Step three: Burn it with fire.

[Bottled_Spider]

All in all, 560, I think this thread went very well for you. You presented your case succintly and persuaded most people here, I think, that you've been cyberbullied and all the other stuff you were talking about. Only read about 5% of it, to be honest, but I'm sure I got the gist. I'm still rooting for you, in a morphologically resonant way. Cheers.

[560wasbullied]

All in all, 560, I think this thread went very well for you. You presented your case succintly and persuaded most people here, I think, that you've been cyberbullied and all the other stuff you were talking about. Only read about 5% of it, to be honest, but I'm sure I got the gist. I'm still rooting for you, in a morphologically resonant way. Cheers.

Well this thread has been quite disappointing. However the site data of traffic coming from this forum tells quite a different story, and in that light, it's been a success. 43 unique visits came to the site, with the average time spent on the site 6:00 minutes - with a core readership here reading over 10 pages on the site with many spending 15 minutes or more. So that's good. that's great actually. That's what I needed to see, people's actual behaviors, not their forum personalities and posturing.

Other than that, I'm not sure what this community actually does or accomplishes here. I was hoping for some sort of nuanced discussion and review, advice even of what to do. I felt like I went on Reddit or 4han instead but worse, because at least on Reddit and 4chan, you have forward thinking assholes instead of just cynical assholes.

So I'm just going to go off and work with other organizations on this issue. I'm already in contact with the Wall Street Journal, the Wikimedia foundation, and a handful of bloggers to begin. I was hoping to send everyone here but obviously that's not what this community is about.

[560wasbullied]

I'm not confused about that, I've considered it and it's not what I am talking about. I never said social media would replace military force. You have your own idea about what this idea is about. It's about how law is written, not enforced. How law is enforced however is also written into law.

That's sort of emblematic of our problem here; when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning, you seem to have this tendency to tell the person you really mean something completely different and the other person is misconstruing you in some way. When it's pointed out to you that your being misconstrued might not be entirely the fault of the reader, but possibly yours for not being especially clear, you grow impatient and tell the person to simply take your word for it, as if the interpretation you want people to make is the only reasonable one and all others are foolish, etc., etc. Maybe these tactics are a requirement for people who advocate radical ideas, but this forum actually exists to advocate the preservation of certain traditions and standards - and such tactics do make it very difficult and frustrating to carry on a substantive conversation, which in turn leads to forum members calling for threads to be moved or closed.

It's possible that this was inevitable, given the way this all got started, and the nature of the underlying dispute. But it's still unfortunate... I've just seen too many people squander too much goodwill in too many similar ways.

Hey Midsize Jake - thanks for your input. I'm perplexed why my TEDx talk was even the focus. I'm not here defending that idea - and I don't relate at all to what you wrote above. I also don't see anyone 'pointing out' anything other than their own cynicism. I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it. That's what I assume this forum is about. I never asked anyone to take my word for anything. I certainly never got any good will here.

I find the reaction here in this forum to be quite common. A community can heckle, abuse, poke, and offend all they want to a new comer. If that new comer stands up and defends themselves, offering a challenge back, they get all offended as if they were surprised communication is a two way street.

But you're right, it is my fault. I had an entirely different expectation. I actually expected a forum that discusses abuses on Wikipedia to be a little more astute and actually show an interest discussing abuses on Wikipedia. I did not realize this forum is about carrying on traditions and standards - i thought that was conservapedia.

[560wasbullied]

Oh you are taking about 'that' sort of change - how cute. Crowds are not rational, and as we have seen above they can be very easily manipulated by power structures.

Crowds, and communities indeed are not rational. However 'collective intelligence' is rational and if there is a social framework that organizes a collective, a collective's output can also be rational

Back in 2007/8 when the sub-prime con came to light, we saw the biggest transfer of wealth from black Americans to corporate America since the ending of slavery. $billions were stolen from amongst the poorest in society. Social media got a number of people out to 'Occupy' parks and squares, but social media couldn't keep them there. In response to police with clubs and mace, it demonized the individuals, but completely missed apportioning responsibility to those that put those cops on the street in the first place. Meanwhile the financial system shut the fuck up for a few months, mutter mea culpa a few times and a year later were back to their old tricks, carrying on the same practices that had fucked everyone over in the first place. Social media moved onto to focus on twerking.

I'm sorry, but we are just talking about two different things. I am talking about social media as platforms. You're finding issue with the content exchanged through them.

Mega tech corporations built through social media a protest movement (STOP SOPA) to protect their ill gotten profits from the exploitation of musicians, authors, film makers, and photographers. They managed to direct it for a few days in mid January 2012, by the time that mid-term elections came around those that had supported SOPA, were re-elected with increased majorities. The protest HAD not affected their electability at all.

What is possible however is that once an official is elected - there could be a platform they would use for consensus building with other elected officials that would be transparent and open.

Otherwise you can effect changes locally by organizing and taking control. That means getting outside and away from the 'social media', because whilst you are 'social mediaing' you ain't changing a fucking thing. Change involves taking something in the real world by the throat and throttling it.



Because here I'm not engaging in social media, what I'm doing here in this thread is reconfiguring your synapses, through the medium of electromagnetic waves and quantum physics.

I'm sorry, but a discussion forum is a clear example of social media. It's given your cranky voice an outlet that you probably would have a much more difficult time finding than at your local starbucks.

Well you're spending your time using social media right now to affect the 'change' or the lack thereof that you believe in.

I've spent the last 10 years developing an online platform that uses collective editing to sort large discussions by 'rational consensus'. A way to organize online discussions so the output is refined and rational. You're using social media to get your point across just as much as any teenager who is 'twerking'. You're just twerking about something else. I'm sorry your disappointed in Twitter and Facebook, and I'm also sorry your so cynical about technology. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm just showing you another POV that thinks otherwise.

cheers

[560wasbullied]

Oh, please kill it. A Wikipediocracy bullied me thread can be opened up later. I will volunteer to be the bully.

You've already volunteered and I welcome your participation with great eagerness.

[DanMurphy]

I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying." Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case. I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all. As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost.

You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any. Since you've correctly discovered that this forum doesn't exist to serve your petty personal needs you're taking your ball and going home. Which is fine. Good luck with the Journal. You're going to need it.

[560wasbullied]

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying."

lol - well posting an opinion on the internet isn't arguing. I think you over value your own conclusions

Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case.

Such as? do you have evidence, or just your poorly thought through opinion confused as evidence?

I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all.

Have you looked?

As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost.

Well the key is 'the best you can make'. I'm not impressed with any of your argumentation, so far you've just dropped off a few poo pooing.

If you have a specific criticism and can point to evidence I present then go for it. Until then, I'm just getting whiney reactions from you and it's disappointing

You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any.

You're bullshitting the forum and yourself again. It's very clear why I came here, I posted it in very clear language. I came here to see if there were any other cases of cyberbullying to add to my study. All I got was trolling - not one person said 'yes, you should look here or check this out'.

Secondly, I gave this community a preview of something that is not yet live, not to seek support, but criticism and evaluation.

You have not evaluated anything, you've just given me your poo poo. Not very convincing. This is a deliberative affair, at least it is for me.

Since you've correctly discovered that this forum doesn't exist to serve your petty personal needs you're taking your ball and going home.

If you're evidence of what this forum exists for, it's appears to exist for a handful of disgruntled wikipedia editors who finally have a fap fast for their poo poos.

Which is fine. Good luck with the Journal. You're going to need it.

Oh I agree - I need all the help i can get. If you noticed, Mid Size Jake made a critique and I altered my study due to his suggestions.

That's why I came to a forum that claims to help with stuff like this.

Let's hear it. Let's hear your next poo poo. I hardly expect you to provide any empirical argument or rational discourse.

Or maybe your going to pick up your ball and leave this thread?

[Cedric]

Hey Midsize Jake - thanks for your input. I'm perplexed why my TEDx talk was even the focus. I'm not here defending that idea - and I don't relate at all to what you wrote above. I also don't see anyone 'pointing out' anything other than their own cynicism. I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it. That's what I assume this forum is about. I never asked anyone to take my word for anything. I certainly never got any good will here.

Except that you did expect us to take your word for it, giving us disingenuous explanations of why you were not plainly stating your case right at the start. Even after much discussion, you still have not given us the particular facts upon which you base your claims of being bullied. Given that practically all of the membership here have been genuinely bullied or subjected to false accusations on Wikipedia, it is very understandable why they were and are suspicious of your motives. It would be very strange if this were not the case.

Other than that, I'm not sure what this community actually does or accomplishes here. I was hoping for some sort of nuanced discussion and review, advice even of what to do. I felt like I went on Reddit or 4han instead but worse, because at least on Reddit and 4chan, you have forward thinking assholes instead of just cynical assholes.

So I'm just going to go off and work with other organizations on this issue. I'm already in contact with the Wall Street Journal, the Wikimedia foundation, and a handful of bloggers to begin. I was hoping to send everyone here but obviously that's not what this community is about.

I cannot tell if your inability to distinguish between cynics and skeptics is genuine or merely pretended. Not that it makes much difference, I suppose; it has become clear enough that you have some sort of hidden agenda. So go right ahead and "go off and work with other organizations" if you please. If you are as disingenuous with them as you have been with us, you should expect a similar reaction.

[SB_Johnny]

But you're right, it is my fault. I had an entirely different expectation. I actually expected a forum that discusses abuses on Wikipedia to be a little more astute and actually show an interest discussing abuses on Wikipedia. I did not realize this forum is about carrying on traditions and standards - i thought that was conservapedia.

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Around here, proclaiming that there has been bullying on Wikipedia is akin to proclaiming that there has been a fender-bender during rush hour somewhere in the NYC metropolitan area. Unless there's something particularly spectacular about the fender-bender, the natural response is going to be, "what's the news here?"

2) Thus far you've been a one-issue poster. WP's issues are rather far-ranging, we discuss them at length, and we aren't a counceling service.

3) You're suffering from not being the first one-issue person with an unusual view of science who responds to every single comment with a long retort (previous personalities have waxed on about cold fusion, the superior temperament associated with red hair, bizarre interpretations of human sexuality, etc.). Forums tend to form calluses based on previous annoyances.

4) These stylistic issues on your part discourage those of us who might want to engage more directly in the issue, thus all that's left is the food fight and videos.

5) As a rule, when you resort to dismissing the forum because the feedback wasn't exactly as you expected (including the "well, I'm taking my toys somewhere else, you people just don't know what you're missing!"), you're well on your way to having no chance whatsoever at being taken seriously.

[560wasbullied]

Except that you did expect us to take your word for it, giving us disingenuous explanations of why you were not plainly stating your case right at the start.

If that is what you believe then I suggest your interpretation is quite cloudy. I have been disingenuous about nothing. If you think I have, please do the ol copy pasta of what I was not being genuine about.

Even after much discussion, you still have not given us the particular facts upon which you base your claims of being bullied.

dood. I gave a link to the ENTIRE STUDY. And as my data shows on the site, LOTS of people here have read it and spent considerable time reading it. If you think I have not provided evidence where I say I have, then you can actually link to the example and make your case.

If you can't do that, and provide a rational argument - I'm not interested in having a reddit discussion

Given that practically all of the membership here have been genuinely bullied or subjected to false accusations on Wikipedia, it is very understandable why they were and are suspicious of your motives. It would be very strange if this were not the case.

They can be suspicious all they want. I dont expect them to remain suspicious however once evidence presents otherwise. I've been extraordinarily transparent and have exposed myself to public evaluation. I dont know what else I can do other than that

I cannot tell if your inability to distinguish between cynics and skeptics is genuine or merely pretended.

they only thing I can tell is that none of you are evaluating what I presented in any critical discourse and you all seem to relish in doing to others what your bitching about was done to you.

Not that it makes much difference, I suppose; it has become clear enough that you have some sort of hidden agenda.

great. if it's so clear, then you can provide some sort of empirical argument and some evidence for it.

So go right ahead and "go off and work with other organizations" if you please. If you are as disingenuous with them as you have been with us, you should expect a similar reaction.

If you're suspicious about something, then come out and say what it is your afraid of. For the most part, I'm an open book. I've been extraordinarily honest and transparent and spent a lot of time in being so.

[560wasbullied]

A few things to keep in mind:

Please, I don't need to be shepherded how to navigate this community. This community has already shown me how they evaluate

1) Around here, proclaiming that there has been bullying on Wikipedia is akin to proclaiming that there has been a fender-bender during rush hour somewhere in the NYC metropolitan area. Unless there's something particularly spectacular about the fender-bender, the natural response is going to be, "what's the news here?"

Well as the evidence shows in this thread, that wasn't the reaction

2) Thus far you've been a one-issue poster. WP's issues are rather far-ranging, we discuss them at length, and we aren't a counceling service.

then say that. then say 'hey, thanks for dropping by. we're not really here to help people with case studies. "

3) You're suffering from not being the first one-issue person with an unusual view of science who responds to every single comment with a long retort (previous personalities have waxed on about cold fusion, the superior temperament associated with red hair, bizarre interpretations of human sexuality, etc.). Forums tend to form calluses based on previous annoyances.

dood you don't even know what your talking about here and it's clear you have not read anything in my study. I have an 'unusual' view of science eh? do i? what's that? can you actually find my own language where I inform the reader of my view of science?

[EDIT: and if I did have an unusual view of science that means that it's okay to harass me? That common decency should only be expected from people that have a 'common' view of science? is that the implication? isn't that like saying she deserved to be raped because she was dressed like a slut?

4) These stylistic issues on your part discourage those of us who might want to engage more directly in the issue, thus all that's left is the food fight and videos.

Ahh, so someone new comes to the forum with a genuine interest and seeking genuine evaluation - and because I missed some sort of cultural nuance here, it threw the entire community into a tizzy and I deserve it. got it.

5) As a rule, when you resort to dismissing the forum because the feedback wasn't exactly as you expected (including the "well, I'm taking my toys somewhere else, you people just don't know what you're missing!"), you're well on your way to having no chance whatsoever at being taken seriously.

Be honest dood. As a rule, you should expect to get back what you give in a discussion. If someone responds to me online and is rational, has common decency, then they can expect that in return. You're just getting miffed because I am challenging a few posters on this forum back directly. Communication is a two way street. I'll take responsibility for mine, and you take responsibility for yours.

Engage with me rationally and with common sense and common decency, and we will get along just fine.

[SB_Johnny]

Be honest dood. As a rule, you should expect to get back what you give in a discussion. If someone responds to me online and is rational, has common decency, then they can expect that in return. You're just getting miffed because I am challenging a few posters on this forum back directly. Communication is a two way street. I'll take responsibility for mine, and you take responsibility for yours.

Engage with me rationally and with common sense and common decency, and we will get along just fine.

I'm not miffed, I was simply trying to give you an insider's perspective so that you might get a better understanding of why you're not getting the reception you seem to be looking for. At this point it's rater difficult to see the wheat through the billowing cloud of chaff, so perhaps it will go better after you have something concrete that you're prepared and/or willing to share in a concise and understandable manner.

[560wasbullied]

Be honest dood. As a rule, you should expect to get back what you give in a discussion. If someone responds to me online and is rational, has common decency, then they can expect that in return. You're just getting miffed because I am challenging a few posters on this forum back directly. Communication is a two way street. I'll take responsibility for mine, and you take responsibility for yours.

Engage with me rationally and with common sense and common decency, and we will get along just fine.

I'm not miffed, I was simply trying to give you an insider's perspective so that you might get a better understanding of why you're not getting the reception you seem to be looking for. At this point it's rater difficult to see the wheat through the billowing cloud of chaff, so perhaps it will go better after you have something concrete that you're prepared and/or willing to share in a concise and understandable manner.

Well gee I know your still trying to make me wrong anyway you can, but the fact is I DID share something https://sites.google.com/site/wikipedia ... me/summary concrete - it's an entire study, not just a rant of opinions - and so far, no one said they couldn't understand it. Indeed, all the commentary here claims to understand all sorts of things from the outcome to the situation in Egypt to the future of social media to my points of view on science and what happened because of it.

If what you were saying was true, you would think the rational response would be 'hey 560 - it's kinda hard to understand the evidence, it's not coming through here'

right?

[SB_Johnny]

If what you were saying was true, you would think the rational response would be 'hey 560 - it's kinda hard to understand the evidence, it's not coming through here'

right?

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

[560wasbullied]

If what you were saying was true, you would think the rational response would be 'hey 560 - it's kinda hard to understand the evidence, it's not coming through here'

right?

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

lol, yes this morning at the bottom of page 3.

Anyway, no worries. I'm not miffed either. And thank you for being honest, you don't understand where the evidence is. I want to make it easier to find and navigate so that's helpful.

Well here it is

Here you will find evidence of outing and harassment by Vzaak day 3 of my participation. You will also find evidence that Vzaak knew that personal information she was passing around was both inappropriate and not relevant. Vzaak offerred me an olive branch in exchange for me not pushing this issue and she continued anyway. https://sites.google.com/site/wikipedia ... -tumbleman [EDIT: go to the section that is titled "NOPE" for the links to the evidence]


She then continued to spread personal information about me to other editors, even those not involved with the Sheldrake talk page. Now she had under 10 editors personally harassing me on the forum. https://sites.google.com/site/wikipedia ... -consensus [EDIT: the top of each page tells the context, so if you want to skip to where the evidence for this is go to the section that is titled "By Oct 7th a significant increase in personal attacks" ]

The links are the contexts and story of what happened, and then there are links in the story to the diffs or pages on Wikipedia that show the behaviors. You will find links of Vzaak spreading personal information about me to others and them plotting to harass and sanction me weeks before it happened. Then after it happened you will find links to what admins and editors were abusing me with on my talk page.

I'm happy to go into more detail if you need.

[EDIT: if context is not important, there is the complete evidence trail in the chapter 'Vzaak's Great Deception, Debunked" Where I deconstruct her testimony and evidence with my own https://sites.google.com/site/wikipedia ... n-debunked ]

[Vigilant]

Because here I'm not engaging in social media, what I'm doing here in this thread is reconfiguring your synapses, through the medium of electromagnetic waves and quantum physics.

Excellent!

[Vigilant]

I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying." Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case. I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all. As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost.

You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any. Since you've correctly discovered that this forum doesn't exist to serve your petty personal needs you're taking your ball and going home. Which is fine. Good luck with the Journal. You're going to need it.

HEADSHOT!

[560wasbullied]

I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying." Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case. I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all. As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost.

You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any. Since you've correctly discovered that this forum doesn't exist to serve your petty personal needs you're taking your ball and going home. Which is fine. Good luck with the Journal. You're going to need it.

HEADSHOT!

I think Dan's down for the count, I don't see him bringing anything else to this thread and nor do I you. but your imagery is very revealing none the less. It's like a video game to you! adorable.

[Vigilant]

I came here to discuss a very clear issue of cyber bullying with extraordinarily clear evidence for it

Losing an argument on the internet isn't "cyber-bullying." Part of your problem is you keep asserting things that don't appear to be the case. I don't see any clear "cyber-bullying" at all. As best I can make out you went to Wikipedia to push pseudo-scientific nonsense and lost.

You came here in search of support for your various opinions and haven't found any. Since you've correctly discovered that this forum doesn't exist to serve your petty personal needs you're taking your ball and going home. Which is fine. Good luck with the Journal. You're going to need it.

HEADSHOT!

I think Dan's down for the count, I don't see him bringing anything else to this thread and nor do I you. but your imagery is very revealing none the less. It's like a video game to you! adorable.

You've missed the bus.
Dan is universally respected here.
I can't find anyone here who would miss your posts were they gone.

P.S. You + are = you're, your is a possessive. Sped.

[560wasbullied]

You've missed the bus.
Dan is universally respected here.
I can't find anyone here who would miss your posts were they gone.

P.S. You + are = you're, your is a possessive. Sped.

Well I've already had a an email or two warning me that dan was just another bully and blowhard so maybe he is not as respected as you're thinking. So far everyone I have talked to that have come to this forum has the same impression. Just a bunch of cranks and bullies for the most part with one or two gems if you can find them. Thanks for correcting mah grammrs and splings on teh internetz. I assume that was your speciality on Wikipedia. I could use help editing my article if you need something to obsess on lol

[560wasbullied]

Also, I haven't missed the bus, this forum has. Do you think I was actually resting my case on the reactions here? This community has not exactly done the slickest job of presenting the issues to the general public. When the interested public comes here, assuming this is some sort of sanctuary, you all harass them to so you can have your little isolated think tank whining about your poo poos on Wikipedia. I came here to ask for help and offer help to what I thought was a shared message. I've missed nothing, only have earned the wisdom there is not much this community really offers.

[Cedric]

The "entire study" you provide is simply your own history of your dispute with Wikipedia-- you say practically nothing about what the dispute actually concerned in terms of content, other than it had to do with some theories of Rupert Sheldrake.

It was his theories about psychic pets, wasn't it? Please tell me it was the psychic pets.

[enwikibadscience]

The "entire study" you provide is simply your own history of your dispute with Wikipedia-- you say practically nothing about what the dispute actually concerned in terms of content, other than it had to do with some theories of Rupert Sheldrake.

It was his theories about psychic pets, wasn't it? Please tell me it was the psychic pets.

Oh, oh, if it is about psychic pets, I'm unfoeing. That's my psychic cat, not me, in my profile pic. <--

Psychic pets! Psychic pets! Please, please, make it be about psychic pets.

[Vigilant]

Also, I haven't missed the bus, this forum has. Do you think I was actually resting my case on the reactions here? This community has not exactly done the slickest job of presenting the issues to the general public. When the interested public comes here, assuming this is some sort of sanctuary, you all harass them to so you can have your little isolated think tank whining about your poo poos on Wikipedia. I came here to ask for help and offer help to what I thought was a shared message. I've missed nothing, only have earned the wisdom there is not much this community really offers.

If you see nothing of value here, then kindly fuck off.