Quora

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:25 pm

Now someone needs to ask 'What is wikipediocracy.com?'

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:28 pm

No, I will not sign up to Quora with Google, Facebook, Twitter or email.

What Is Quora? Seven Answers from Adam D’Angelo and Marc Bodnick
Xconomy, 3 October 2013 link

The next time you’re sitting alone with your laptop or smartphone and you have a few minutes free, don’t waste it browsing Facebook photos, watching cat videos on YouTube, or reading cartoons (though xkcd is fine). Instead, do a search at the Q&A site Quora, find a topic that you know something about, and write an answer.

[...]

Quora is not Wikipedia.

Technically, both Quora and Wikipedia are crowdsourced databases of information about the real world. But it’s how the two organizations define “crowd” that sets them apart from each other.

Over the years, Wikipedia’s claim to being collaboratively edited has grown weak. “Anyone can put Wikipedia in the palms of his or her hands, including you. All you need to do is simply edit an article,” the organization says. In reality, the vast majority of Wikipedia users never write or edit anything, and for understandable reasons: it’s exhausting and discouraging. The technical and cultural barriers raised against newcomers are high, and even the tiniest change to a Wikipedia article can prompt a “revert war” with the site’s established clique of volunteer editors.

“You can make it very difficult to contribute, you can set up all these rules you have to follow about what can go into an article and having a neutral point of view and citing every source, and you can get into fights with other editors—if you are willing to have a very small percentage of people ever contribute,” D’Angelo says. Such restrictions may be unavoidable if you’re trying to build an archive of established facts on notable subjects. But if you’re interested in gathering experiential knowledge, they just get in the way, he says. “I think [Wikipedia] gets great results for the area that it covers, but if you want to get the other knowledge that is out there in people’s heads, then you need to make it easier.”

For people who want to participate on Quora, there’s a big blank “Add Your Answer” box on every question page, and all you have to learn in order to write an answer is how to operate a few text-formatting buttons. Once your answer is published, other Quora visitors may take issue with it, but they can’t delete or edit it just because it’s heterodox. Says Bodnick, “Wikipedia takes an anonymous, consensus, single view—‘this is what the community of editors has decided that you should know about Mozart’—whereas Quora allows multiple perspectives.”

Also unlike Wikipedia, Quora requires contributors to use their real names, so that readers can gauge their credibility more easily. “When you let people use fake names, you allow them to engage in adversarial behavior that deters others from writing,” Bodnick says. “But when you require people to use their real names, it forces them to think about their reputations and the consequences of their actions. It keeps people civil.”

Dear Quora,
How can I get Wikipedia off the internet?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:34 pm

Dear Quora,
Why is Jimmy Wales so scary?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:25 pm

What Is Quora? Seven Answers from Adam D’Angelo and Marc Bodnick

...Says Bodnick, “Wikipedia takes an anonymous, consensus, single view—‘this is what the community of editors has decided that you should know about Mozart’—whereas Quora allows multiple perspectives.”

I have said this before, but it bears repeating -- Bodnick is a little weasel, just like Jimbo. It's worth noting that Jimmy Wales is an investor in Quora, not just a mere participant. I think this is especially important because Quora executive Marc Bodnick routinely deletes any Quora content that is problematic for Jimmy Wales, creating an atmosphere where the Quora management are certainly handicapping the site in favor of an investor. Is that supporting those "multiple perspectives" that Bodnick's espousing? Maybe by "multiple", he means his perspective and Jimbo's perspective.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:00 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Also unlike Wikipedia, Quora requires contributors to use their real names, so that readers can gauge their credibility more easily. “When you let people use fake names, you allow them to engage in adversarial behavior that deters others from writing,” Bodnick says. “But when you require people to use their real names, it forces them to think about their reputations and the consequences of their actions. It keeps people civil.”

"requires contributors to use their real names" is not quite accurate. I certainly didn't use my real name when registering there.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:05 pm

Somehow Quora actually made quality scale. But can it still make us smarter on a smaller screen?
Pando Daily, 9 October 2013 link

Quora has barely thought about monetizing and has nowhere near the hype it once enjoyed, but give it credit for one thing: It has seemingly done the impossible. It has found a way to make very high quality user-generated content scale. It has stayed out of the Yahoo Answer’s trap. And, more to the point, it has built a sizable website that effectively serves to make people smarter.

Quora is the opposite of everything snobs hate about the Web. There are plenty of long form “TL;DR” answers that people soak up. There are complex intellectual topics being discussed by scientists and PhDs. They don’t even have to dangle a kitten video to get you to tune in. Aside from Wikipedia and Yelp, there are few other user generated content sites that ask quite so much of the users generating the content.

There’s a meme in the Valley that Quora is “done,” but the site is still growing. Co-founder and CEO Adam D’Angelo showed me the traffic graphs on his phone at a recent meeting. He asked that I not divulge details, but its user metrics have tripled over the last year. And the key is that Quora has done that while making the world smarter.

[...]

I frequently get sucked into those familiar Wikipedia-like rabbit holes when I read Quora, but the Q&A format makes it a very different experience. Wikipedia’s knowledge necessarily has to be confirmed by others or external sources to be verified. It’s about facts, not analysis or an expert opinion. In general, the knowledge is out there, Wikipedia is simply aggregating it together. In contrast, Quora’s knowledge is frequently sucked out of people’s brain by a question and put on the Web for the first time. It’s seeking consensus and truth, but not particularly facts. There’s a subtle difference.

[...]

This year it’s challenge is doing the same on mobile. Next year the challenge will be turning that into a business. Mark Zuckerberg once described D’Angelo as the smartest person he’d ever met. But this may be too big of a challenge even for him.

Assuming Quora cracks mobile this year it has another challenge in store for 2014: Monetization. When I sat down with D’Angelo a few weeks ago, I asked him a question that you could see showing up on his site: Can you build a big consumer Web property that tries to make people smarter? “Well, Google does,” he says. “There is a lot of money to be made when influencing a decision. This is why LinkedIn does well too. It’s serious and delivers a lot of traffic with intent.”

The plan is not surprisingly around ads, with the kind of smart targeting that allows Quora’s seemingly niche content to find the right eyeballs. The hope is to build a Google-like ad product that’s mostly self-serve targeting the long tail of interests reflected in Quora’s content. But D’Angelo wants to get bigger first. He’s not quite ready to start making money.

This is after all how ads work on the Web. It’s not enough to be big, you have to be big and distinct and then unveil an ad product that’s unique enough it doesn’t fall victim to the bargain basement clicks-o-sphere of the Web. Building a big business of that kind of ad inventory is near impossible, without kitten videos anyway. There is a graveyard of content companies who have tried.

D’Angelo may have found millions of people who want to be smarter. But making money off them will be another matter.

The smartest person Mark Zuckerberg ever met

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Is it possible to scale civility on the Internet? Quora is trying
GigaOM, 29 September 2014 link https://gigaom.com/2014/09/29/is-it-pos ... is-trying/[/link]

Summary:
Quora’s head of business believes it’s the safest place on the Internet for writers. But he admits the company has faced it fair share of challenges making it so.

[...] From the beginning, Quora had a policy of “Be nice be respectful.” On Monday, Quora took that one step further. It has introduced a new anti-harassment feature, where users are prompted to flag any comment or post that they believe is abusive or adversarial. One lightly antagonistic post may not constitute a “personal attack” by itself. But when taken in summation, a bunch of lightly abusive comments start to look more like bullying. Quora moderators will be able to view a summary of a person’s activity and determine whether to block or warn them. I spoke with Marc Bodnick, Quora’s head of business and community, about the challenges of “scaling civility,” how Wikipedia has served as an inspiration, and why this matters (hint: It’s not about ethics, it’s about business). The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

Quora isn’t the first place people think of when they worry about cyberbullying. Why are you introducing more features to combat what is essentially a nonexistent problem on the platform?

Marc Bodnick: I believe we are the safest place on the web for writing. So yeah, our quality is high but we want to make sure it keeps staying high as we get three times bigger and three times bigger than that. This change will allow us to see more behavior in a scalable way and identify people who are violating policy more quickly. [...]

Who is “scaling civility” right?
In many ways Wikipedia is the best model for how you mediate interactions among strangers to create a giant database of knowledge. Wikipedia is an inspiration for a lot of what we do… We just hired Steven Walling, a product manager, as our first hire away from Wikipedia. He has experience building products that mediate interactions.

Is Wikipedia Quora’s competitor?

Bodnick: We think they’re complementary.

Steven Walling: What I hear from both Quora and Wikipedia is a lot of mutual admiration. For example, Wikipedia wants to change its design. In August Jan-Bart de Vreede, the chairman of Wikimedia’s Board of Trustrees, cited Quora when saying “Other Internet projects are passing Wikipedia by left and right.” [...]

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:33 pm

It has introduced a new anti-harassment feature, where users are prompted to flag any comment or post that they believe is abusive or adversarial.

So, like wikipedia, polite abuse is preferred to blunt disagreement.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:41 pm

I left a comment, awaiting moderation.

I am not surprised that Quora (and Bodnick) would hire from the Wikimedia Foundation (and Walling). Both of these organizations and both of these individuals imagine that they run “open” and “transparent” projects — but in reality they clamp down and censor any robust criticism of their practices, at the first sign of facts hitting too close to home. I would be happy to publicly debate either or both of them, but I suspect that they would refuse, owing to the risk of having their cronies exposed. (E.g., Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales is an investor in Quora, but when Quora content gets the least bit critical of Wales, accounts are banned and content is removed — personally, by Bodnick, per “policy”. But when accounts using obviously fake names — also a policy violation — are pointed out to Bodnick, he does nothing.) As DeAmicis sagely discovered, “It’s not about ethics, it’s about business”.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:13 pm

In many ways Wikipedia is the best model for how you mediate interactions among strangers to create a giant database of knowledge.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:52 pm

I can't post over there becasue it keeps asking me for my email. Anyways, I'll try to get it on there later.

Is this really an article about the introduction of a post flagging policy? That's a pretty low bar for a technology report. That said, I can't think of a worse example of a site to model civility policy on than Wikipedia, which is rampant with bias, misogyny (80% male contributors), bullying, censorship and all manner of unchecked harassment against other users. And that's just the admins. The thing to realize is that Wikipedia's toxic culture is a feature, not a bug. All wikis are built though conflict, so it's no surprise that its community is also built on aggression. Wikipedia's culture of aggression is the main reason most people leave the site - there's only so much harassment a normal person can take.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:35 pm

If anyone wants to call Bodnick on his bullshit, I can provide some really juicy examples of Walling abusing people on Wikipedia.....

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:00 am

EricBarbour wrote:If anyone wants to call Bodnick on his bullshit, I can provide some really juicy examples of Walling abusing people on Wikipedia.....

Do it. They should know who they're hiring.

Quora has a serious problem with misogyny, racism, and all sorts of other prejudicial behaviors. They've done a fairly good job of responding to this by creating functional moderation mechanisms. I fully expect that those mechanisms will be heavily gamed by activists to suppress "inappropriate" points of view, as well as by trolls and by those interested in personally harassing individuals. Walling is exactly the sort of person who tolerates, even encourages, such gaming (at least when the points of view being suppressed are ones he disfavors) and will likely consider the harassment of "isolated" individual participants an "acceptable price to pay".

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:13 am

Kelly Martin wrote:Do it. They should know who they're hiring.

Anyone remember Robert Rohde, an administrator who ran statistics in October 2007 showing that Wikipedia editing has started to decline?
Statistics which were later proven to be correct. Remember who was the first person to attack him, and keep on attacking him?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 82563.html

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:51 am

Steven Walling thought that a $4 billion business with scores of reliable-source mentions covering it should not merit its own article in Wikipedia. He is a buffoon.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:07 am

When the Carolyn Doran story was broken by The Register, Walling posted the following on Wikien-l:

"This seems to be pretty old hat. The disgusting part of the Register's story is that it relies more on alluding to things without evidence. There's no evidence that she was fired or resigned because of the Foundation finding out about her record. But the Register sure works hard to make it look plausible. And next they so blatantly hint that the audit has been postponed due to her, again without any credible evidence. Worst of all, they are trying to scare up hits with the heavy hint that somehow millions of donated funds have been mishandled. With zero evidence of any financial mishandling, they so clearly say that donators have been duped by an organization that hires felons willy-nilly. Disgusting. It makes me want to burn my press credentials. Critics hating Wikipedia's methods or community is one thing. But this is pure slander for the sake of profit. "

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:10 am

He defended Sue Gardner in a risible November 2013 Reddit thread. Numerous WMF employees and fans showed up to shout down any criticism of Gardner or Wikipedia.

During a January 2014 argument on Jimbotalk about the "Articles for Creation" "system", Walling said this.

"Kusma At the Wikimedia Foundation, we're on the verge of completing some in-depth research in to article creation trends across all the major Wikipedias. We'll be publishing it on Meta and doing a talk (which I expect will be webcast) about it soon. We looked at what impact AFC was having on article deletion rates for new editors and compared it more experienced editors, as well as to userspace drafts in English and other languages. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)"

And the only response was an anonymous comment:

"Walling, WMF have been "on the verge" of fixing this for over 5 years. When are you gonna pull your finger out of your ass and actually do something?"

Also in July 2007, Walling fought with SqueakBox and others to keep an article called "Pro-pedophile activism", which had been a target for pedophile editing. It was later deleted and redirected.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:12 am

I inadvertently nuked his original RFA, back in the day.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:27 am

Alison wrote:I inadvertently nuked his original RFA, back in the day.

Yeah, and this part was the funniest. He'd been fighting to keep Angela Beesley's BLP, while she was "sneaking around" trying to get all traces of herself removed from every public corner of Wikipedia. Walling also helped Jimbo remove a mention of Bomis from Template:Wikipedia. What a maroon.

One of my earliest interactions with VanTucky was in the context of the AfD for Angela Beesley. It was a highly polarized debate, and in my view VanTucky was one of a tiny minority of editors who was willing to re-evaluate his opinion in the face of new information and new arguments. I understand there's some concern about him "digging in his heels," and I'm not denying that opinion, merely stating that he has exhibited the opposite behavior as well.
More generally, I believe that it's important to have administrators who care passionately about the encyclopedia. The thing about passion is that it often brings us into contentious situations. Someone who cares deeply will undoubtedly have a few errors in judgment in their history. In my view, such a person is generally preferable to someone who merely does lots of uncontroversial tweaks, e.g. vandal fighting, and completely avoids contentious discussions. Yes, it's a balancing act; but I want to caution others against putting too much weight on any specific debate.

I continue to support VT's candidacy. I think he will use the tools well. He is actively engaged in the wiki community, and on the whole has represented and stewarded it well. Again, none of this is intended to suggest that others are "wrong" in their opinions, I just wanted to spell out my reasoning a little more thoroughly. -Pete 07:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why TINC, okay? Who could call this gang of bumbling, evil, dishonest idiots a "cabal"? Not me.

So I assume we don't get to see User talk:Alison/VanTucky, do we?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:09 am

Alison wrote:I inadvertently nuked his original RFA, back in the day.

You weren't convinced by mine either!

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:14 pm

Hex wrote:
Alison wrote:I inadvertently nuked his original RFA, back in the day.
You weren't convinced by mine either!

My favorite oppose in your RfA:

Strong Oppose In his opening comments, the candidate shows a very poor attitude that is undesirable in a position that requires one to be an exemplar in the community. Being bitter and negative about the RFA process, rather than taking criticism constructively and having the humility to admit that failed attempts may have actually been due to the candidates attributes (rather than the failings of the process) is not desirable. Your edit history is completely irrelevant if you can't demonstrate a positive, constructive attitude to adminship. VanTucky Talk 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord, please help me to stay civil. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:39 pm

As always with Walling, he thinks one's attitude builds encyclopedias; not intelligence, honesty, or ability.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:19 pm

thekohser wrote:As always with Walling, he thinks one's attitude builds encyclopedias; not intelligence, honesty, or ability.

Isn't WP:CIVIL a key part of the Wikipedia ethos? I'm not aware of WP:INTELLIGENT, WP:ABILITY, etc.

Did you know Wikipedia:Intelligent Administrator redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:18 pm

Well, one thing this appointment does – it puts paid to the theory that a career at the WMF could not possibly be an asset for getting another job elsewhere.

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:20 pm

Hex wrote:
Alison wrote:I inadvertently nuked his original RFA, back in the day.
You weren't convinced by mine either!

Eep! Well, in retrospect, I was quite mistaken. Sorry!

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:45 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Well, one thing this appointment does – it puts paid to the theory that a career at the WMF could not possibly be an asset for getting another job elsewhere.

As long as the hiring party is also an FOJ.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:09 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Well, one thing this appointment does – it puts paid to the theory that a career at the WMF could not possibly be an asset for getting another job elsewhere.
As long as the hiring party is also an FOJ.

Exactly.
You can move from shitty new-agey, never going anywhere company to another, similar company.

Nobody who has ever worked for the WMF will get a job at Google, for example.
They've seen their code...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:09 am

From the article, about Walling:

He has experience building products that mediate interactions.

And these products would be...?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:35 am

Why isn't that GigaOM article full of comments from Wikipediocracy?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:17 am

Zoloft wrote: My favorite oppose in your RfA:
Strong Oppose In his opening comments, the candidate shows a very poor attitude that is undesirable in a position that requires one to be an exemplar in the community. Being bitter and negative about the RFA process, rather than taking criticism constructively and having the humility to admit that failed attempts may have actually been due to the candidates attributes (rather than the failings of the process) is not desirable. Your edit history is completely irrelevant if you can't demonstrate a positive, constructive attitude to adminship. VanTucky Talk 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lord, please help me to stay civil. — [ aldebaer⁠] 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember that well - but had forgotten who its author was! How apropos for this thread. Nice find.

For bonus "classic Wikipedia" points: "Aldebaer" became "Everyme" who was indef blocked for socking and block evasion, and the evidence in the sockpuppet investigation came from someone who was himself later banned and...

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:31 am

Alison wrote:
Hex wrote: You weren't convinced by mine either!
Eep! Well, in retrospect, I was quite mistaken. Sorry!

No worries

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:04 pm

==2012==
Apparently, on 2 August Walling tried to block a single IP address and entered a malformed command, blocking all traffic to Wikimedia sites. [16] "Oliver Keyes and Erik Möller elected to throw Steven under the bus, stating that Steven has been declared the cause of all problems and that Steven definitely did it."

==2014==
Walling stupidly defended Sarah Stierch when her paid editing was revealed in January. [17]

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:54 am

EricBarbour wrote:
==2014==
Walling stupidly defended Sarah Stierch when her paid editing was revealed in January. [17]

It's not even that he simply defended her. He took the giant leap to accuse Wikipediocracy of FAKING a freelancer account to look like it was Sarah's, so that we could frame her for paid editing. He honestly believed that was the more logical explanation of the evidence at hand.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:30 pm

thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
==2014==
Walling stupidly defended Sarah Stierch when her paid editing was revealed in January. [17]
It's not even that he simply defended her. He took the giant leap to accuse Wikipediocracy of FAKING a freelancer account to look like it was Sarah's, so that we could frame her for paid editing. He honestly believed that was the more logical explanation of the evidence at hand.

Well, he didn't openly accuse. He "insinuated". Sometimes I get the feeling he wasn't spanked often enough as a child, and learned to lie creatively to cover up his shortcomings.

This would be a good place to "insinuate" something about Steven Walling, but because he's done a bang-up job of hiding the evidence, I will say nothing more.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:27 pm

thekohser wrote:Why isn't that GigaOM article full of comments from Wikipediocracy?

Nevermind.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:38 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:Do it. They should know who they're hiring.
Anyone remember Robert Rohde, an administrator who ran statistics in October 2007 showing that Wikipedia editing has started to decline?
Statistics which were later proven to be correct. Remember who was the first person to attack him, and keep on attacking him?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 82563.html

That exchange is hysterical. When I write my Wikipedia comedy of manners, I'm going to style the protagonist's dialogue after Mr. Walling.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:09 pm

DanMurphy wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:Do it. They should know who they're hiring.
Anyone remember Robert Rohde, an administrator who ran statistics in October 2007 showing that Wikipedia editing has started to decline?
Statistics which were later proven to be correct. Remember who was the first person to attack him, and keep on attacking him?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 82563.html
That exchange is hysterical. When I write my Wikipedia comedy of manners, I'm going to style the protagonist's dialogue after Mr. Walling.

Walling: "You're trying to make an accurate judgment based on 100k of articles from a 2 million article field? Don't insult our intelligence."

Ummm, that's pretty classic.

RfB

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:17 pm

thekohser wrote:
thekohser wrote:Why isn't that GigaOM article full of comments from Wikipediocracy?
Nevermind.

From the article:

"The company's creditors will eventually have all rights to Gigaom's assets as collateral, but it's not yet known what the lenders will do next. Gigaom doesn't currently intend to file for bankruptcy, according to the announcement."

lol. Can't wait for their next venture.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:33 pm

God dammit. Can someone explain how googling "Steven Walling Chicken" doesn't return this?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:56 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:God dammit. Can someone explain how googling "Steven Walling Chicken" doesn't return this?

Try "Hen+Molester"...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:53 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:God dammit. Can someone explain how googling "Steven Walling Chicken" doesn't return this?

Unless he actually does something important (like starting a successful business), that is the only way "posterity" will remember Steven Walling, I suspect. All you can do is point and laugh. He IS Wikipedia.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:30 pm

TungstenCarbide wrote:God dammit. Can someone explain how googling "Steven Walling Chicken" doesn't return this?

TaDaaaa! we are now the number two google image result.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:55 pm

The photogenic Mr Walling, and a couple of our other friends also feature in this splendid little video which is currently featured at Wikipedia:Username policy (T-H-L).

And... end with a sneer, JDF, lovely, that's a wrap...

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:58 pm

Jim wrote:The photogenic Mr Walling, and a couple of our other friends also feature in this splendid little video which is currently featured at Wikipedia:Username policy (T-H-L).

And... end with a sneer, JDF, lovely, that's a wrap...

From March 2010:

We speak a secret jargon filled with more than twelve thousand different acronyms. No Wikipedian knows them all, but we know enough to confuse the hell out of you.
[...]
With all these rules, we could say that we just love to frustrate and annoy anyone who's not a Wikipedian, and I think that wouldn't be the strangest thing to say... [that] we would like to get revenge against the cool kids while we're on our home turf, but the truth is we don't want to annoy you, we're really just quality snobs.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:35 pm

Andreas has just posted a couple of excellent answers (short essays, really) in response to
Would the founders of non-profit websites like Wikipedia get any materialistic profit? and
Nowadays, should we hold and share the view that Wikipedia has grown to become a comprehensive/trustworthy/relevant resource? … or, in other words, the real-deal encyclopedia?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:51 pm

Andreas' work is so calm and complete. Unfortunately, that content is now in the possession of an unethical Quora ownership/management team.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:39 pm

Could we persuade him to re-write them as blog pages?

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:48 am

Andreas has been quite prolific on Quora over the last few days. (link https://www.quora.com/profile/Andreas-Kolbe[/link])

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:51 am

Poetlister wrote:Could we persuade him to re-write them as blog pages?

No, I don't think so.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sun May 21, 2017 2:09 pm

Why do people become Wikipedia writers? link https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-bec ... 1065535333[/link]
Jimmy Wales could have been the richest person in the world if he monetized Wikipedia. Why didn’t he do that? link https://www.quora.com/Jimmy-Wales-could ... he-do-that[/link]