The Daily Mail's scathing reply to Wikipedia

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:46 pm

But it’s all fine. According to Guy (T-C-L), if the Mail finds significant errors and identifies the sources, Wikipedia can fix them, and Wikipedia wins.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:02 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:What is ultimately broken is the project itself, since 'anyone can edit' isn't compatible with 'online encyclopedia'. The result is the dog's breakfast we see instead - a mess of crappy 'articles' about subjects no serious encyclopedia would cover in the first place, along with some middling-quality stuff that merits at least looking at for an overview or to look up some detail of no specific importance (if it actually matters, best check elsewhere...) and a core few percent of articles which actually provide reasonable coverage of important topics. And the only reason the latter achieve the quality they do is because there are just about enough competent contributors around to keep the illiterates, half-wits, and tinfoil-hatters at bay where it matters most. Which leaves the half-wits free rein in the rest of the project. The attempted Mail ban needs to be seen in this context. It was probably an easy target for political reasons, but behind it was the endless dispute between 'quantity' and 'quality' that characterises Wikipedia. A dispute that isn't going to be fixed any time soon, regardless of what 'policies' and 'guidelines' are adopted. The problem isn't the rules, it is the contributors...
I agree with this up to the conclusion. You describe a set of rules which encourage people to behave in a way inconsistent with buliding an encyclopaedia and then blame the people for behaving in the way the rules encourage. It seems that you believe that a different set of people would succeed where the current set are failing, and doomed to fail. But that is not going to happen with the current set of rules. So surely the problem is the rules: or to be more precise, with the fundamental concept of which those rules are the expression.

The people make the rules, and the 'concept'. The rules they make then help determine who will participate in future - and go on to make new rules, and to revise the 'concept'. You can't abstract the rules from the people that make them, and it doesn't really help the analysis to try. As for what a different set of people would do, clearly if one could say limit participation to individuals with a minimum level of educational qualification, one might end up with an entirely different project. That doesn't appear to be an option as far as Wikipedia is concerned though, and other attempts at crowd-sourced encyclopaedias haven't been exactly successful so far. Which suggests that those willing to participate have to work with what they have, flaws and all. Perhaps the most curious thing about all this is that it appears to me at least to have reached some sort of equilibrium as far as quality is concerned. I suspect that this is in part due to the fact that for any given subject, the degree to which an article will get 'fixed' depends on the effort involved in 'fixing' it, and the degree to which anyone actually cares about the subject matter - improving already good articles takes a lot of effort, and while fixing crap may be relatively easy, it is hard to motivate yourself to improve the quality of things you don't actually give a toss about. There is clearly more to this apparent equilibrium than pure issues of quality however, and though I've got some ideas as to what else is going on, I've not had time to develop them fully, and this probably isn't the appropriate thread to discuss them anyway. The point as far as the subject of this thread is concerned - the appropriateness of the Daily Mail as a source - is that such disputes are inevitable in a project which attracts participation from one and all, and that such disputes won't be removed by rule changes. Not least because Wikipedia 'rules' are amorphous beasts, and hard to pin down. Something which by all available evidence, contributors seem to like: I suspect there may be some sort of equilibrium as far as clarity and consistency of rules goes too, which implies that at least some contributors prefer less prescription and more interpretation. I would myself, were it not for the obvious inability of other contributors to interpret things my way.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:11 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote: The people make the rules, and the 'concept'. The rules they make then help determine who will participate in future - and go on to make new rules, and to revise the 'concept'. You can't abstract the rules from the people that make them, and it doesn't really help the analysis to try. As for what a different set of people would do, clearly if one could say limit participation to individuals with a minimum level of educational qualification, one might end up with an entirely different project. That doesn't appear to be an option as far as Wikipedia is concerned though, and other attempts at crowd-sourced encyclopaedias haven't been exactly successful so far. Which suggests that those willing to participate have to work with what they have, flaws and all. Perhaps the most curious thing about all this is that it appears to me at least to have reached some sort of equilibrium as far as quality is concerned. I suspect that this is in part due to the fact that for any given subject, the degree to which an article will get 'fixed' depends on the effort involved in 'fixing' it, and the degree to which anyone actually cares about the subject matter - improving already good articles takes a lot of effort, and while fixing crap may be relatively easy, it is hard to motivate yourself to improve the quality of things you don't actually give a toss about. There is clearly more to this apparent equilibrium than pure issues of quality however, and though I've got some ideas as to what else is going on, I've not had time to develop them fully, and this probably isn't the appropriate thread to discuss them anyway. The point as far as the subject of this thread is concerned - the appropriateness of the Daily Mail as a source - is that such disputes are inevitable in a project which attracts participation from one and all, and that such disputes won't be removed by rule changes. Not least because Wikipedia 'rules' are amorphous beasts, and hard to pin down. Something which by all available evidence, contributors seem to like: I suspect there may be some sort of equilibrium as far as clarity and consistency of rules goes too, which implies that at least some contributors prefer less prescription and more interpretation. I would myself, were it not for the obvious inability of other contributors to interpret things my way.

I think we're converging on the notion that Wikipedia is as good as a crowd-sourced encyclopaedia could possibly be. I suspect that's true. But it's not in equilibrium, not least because the world around it is changing. The longer it maintains itself near the top of the ratings, sustained on the one hand by its Google overlords, and on the other by the relentless self-promotion of the grant-seeking Foundation, the more attractive it becomes to manipulators with a marketing, ideological, political or just plain crazy agenda, and the less attractive it is to people who want to write actual articles. So the balance continues to tilt, until something happens. But, as you rightly say, we're talking about the Daily Mail imbroglio , which is a symtpom of this deeper and uncurable mailaise.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:41 pm

I don't see the dispute over the Daily Mail as an 'imbroglio' so much as part of an ongoing debate. But then maybe I'm biased in as much as I don't consider the Mail trustworthy for much more than the day of the week. And as for outside factors influencing Wikipedia, that should be a given. It is however incumbent on those claiming that specific factors are affecting it in specific ways to provide some sort of evidence to back it up if they are to gain credibility themselves - the sort of anecdotal pronouncements of impending societal collapse that characterise say Tom Utley's Mail column may satisfy readers of a similar dyspeptic conservative bent, but they aren't going to convince me without a little more data. Prophets of doom are right occasionally, per stopped-clock principles, but on the whole they are more entertaining than informative. Which is why I'm going to stick with the 'equilibrium' argument for now, even while I'm not entirely sure why it works that way...

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:53 pm

It is not I but the Foundation that perceives an inceasing threat from paid editors. Presumably they have some evidence for that rather than just making it up. However, the need for evidence cuts both ways. Whether or not the project is in equilibrium is something that can only be decided on that basis. I have given some reasons to believe that the world is moving in a way that would shift the balance: none of them appear to me connected with either the state of my digestion or the party I voted for at the election.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:38 pm

Mason wrote:Yup, the deleted content is as Utley describes.

Thank you. Scarcely surprising!

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:13 am

Just out. ‘Two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes’
Interestingly it mentions Dr Blofeld (T-C-L), who is the author of this edit in April 2015, nearly two years ago.

In the spring of 1979, due to intense lighting used by Kubrick, the set burst into flames and destroyed the building [i.e. the Timberline Lodge]; it had to be completely rebuilt.

As far as I can tell, this is complete fiction. It is still there. Note the spurious citation (Baxter 1997, p. 321). This has always been the weakness of Wikipedia. It insists on citations, but these are never checked.

Can someone PLEASE respond to me? Why on earth have you made this entry, this badly researched and largely inaccurate entry, in spite of there being no strong justification for doing so? Is it out of boredom or institutionalised compulsion? I've spent all of my adult life avoiding publicity and guarding my privacy. I've wanted my work to be available, yes, and so I've been persuaded to promote it on occasion through conventional ways, but that's all that I've promoted - my work, not me. I doubt that you can understand how deeply I resent this intrusion, and how offensive I find it. But it's profound. I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging. Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many other signs of ignorance and poor research. I have not, for example, written 'numerous articles' on any subject for the Daily Mail. As far as I recall I've written about a couple for that paper in my entire life. I've written numerous ones for certain other papers - which are not noted. That's misleading. The author appears not to know the period in which I wrote for the Financial Times - these are all things that one is supposed to ascertain and double check BEFORE publishing something on someone - you don'y just go clodhopping over a living person's past career.

I'll leave you with the only advice I can: take this up with the OTRS team who will be able to help you, as I obviously cannot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried that. What one gets is a purfunctory invitation to dive down the Wikipedia rabbit hole via a series of links that lead nowhere constructive (presumably in the hope that one will give up and leave the self-appointed arbiters of relevance in peace), then patronising offers to allow me to provide the substance for my own unwanted article, and then, that tried and trusted meek exit line, 'We're only volunteers'. I wonder how many other people this disgraceful enterprise drives to despair. Far too many, I suspect. Maybe someone should have a go at 'verifying' it. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're really Graham McCann, prove it. Otherwise shut up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell me how and I will. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"Otherwise shut up" - I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows how his volunteers behave on here? I doubt he's proud. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

We Don't feed the trolls. You should read WP:Civil and implement it. Your approach has not helped your cause or credibility. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:28 am

Michael Cole’s experience:

‘Axl’ then informed me it was most unlikely that what he called ‘The Community’ of Wikipedia would permit my entry to be deleted. ‘The Community’ sounded like something from George Orwell’s 1984 novel and the faceless men in Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth.
[..]
By now I had discovered that ‘The Community’ consists of anyone in a group of self-appointed busybodies with time on their hands who sign up for Wikipedia and chip in with their views and judgments on people they probably do not know.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:36 am

Peter Damian wrote:Just out. ‘Two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes’
Interestingly it mentions Dr Blofeld (T-C-L), who is the author of this edit in April 2015, nearly two years ago.

Blofeld is a fucking idiot of epic proportions. I can't think of a single thing he's had a hand in that doesn't contain bullshit of some sort or other.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:43 pm

Looking at the BLP abuses on Wikipedia is rather soul-crushing.

Pending changes would be good, but it would not have fixed all the inaccuracies in the article. I remember some suggestion in an old WR thread I was browsing (not sure who made it, was it SlimVirgin?), where the subject of the BLP would have an automatic "right of reply" page where they can rebut whatever silly mistakes are present on the WP page.

On another note, there seems to be an opening in the Daily Mail for WP criticism. I noted a similar opening some time ago on Breitbart, which has been mostly closed now, I think. Their "Tech" section, when I saw it some weeks ago, was full of self-promoting pieces on Milo trolling some campus or the other, and very little else. Milo is gone now, anyway.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:22 pm

Kingsindian wrote:...there seems to be an opening in the Daily Mail for WP criticism.

You are correct.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:33 pm

What a difference a few years make. I can remember when one of the most salient critiques of Wikipedia was that they used sources like the Daily Mail.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:52 pm

Mason wrote:What a difference a few years make. I can remember when one of the most salient critiques of Wikipedia was that they used sources like the Daily Mail.

The real issue is that they use newspapers of any sort per se. Newspapers are essentially ephemeral and they deal exclusively in the now. Thus anything that is sourced to a newspaper article, of any date, is by its very nature RECENTISM.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:50 pm

Note that the Daily Mail has apparently followed up on their promise to collect stories from people who felt treated badly by Wikipedia. I'd shrug it off and certainly wouldn't have reinserted this anon posting here, if it wasn't for the fact that I briefly looked at the story they picked. It's about a BLP on one Graham McCann, and the treatment this BLP subject got from an aggressive gang of Wikipedia authors (well-respected, well-connected wikipedia authors at that), turns out to have been truly horrible and embarrassing. I would have blocked the culprits on the spot, had I noticed it back then. I do feel we need to discuss some consequences of this case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to agree with PD here (and was just about to post something to that effect at ANI, when people told me the matter was already discussed here). This BLP subject was treated with an incredible amount of aggression, condescension and scorn by the main article author, User:Dr. Blofeld, and the fact that the complaint was then summarily dismissed and brushed off by no other than Dr. Blofeld's perennial tag-team partner User:SchroCat, acting like a cynical bad cop / good cop pair, is just the icing on the cake. I would have blocked both users on the spot, had I noticed the case back at the time. I do believe it is vital that Wikipedia be seen doing the right thing here, even when under unfair attack from the Mail. A public apology to this article subject on behalf of Wikipedia should be the least thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:11 pm

A campaign to get the Foundation to respond to individuals wanting to correct errors would be valuable. Of course the Foundation would never do that, because it would make them a content provider and jeopardise their legal immunity. So they will be compelled to make increasingly feeble refusals. Considering that the WMF consistently use the term "editor" to mean contributor, perhaps they should be reminded of the American Society of Newspapers Editors Statement of Principles which says

Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.

or the IPSO Code of Practice – the one the Daily Mail follows –

A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Note that the Daily Mail has apparently followed up on their promise to collect stories from people who felt treated badly by Wikipedia. I'd shrug it off and certainly wouldn't have reinserted this anon posting here, if it wasn't for the fact that I briefly looked at the story they picked. It's about a BLP on one Graham McCann, and the treatment this BLP subject got from an aggressive gang of Wikipedia authors (well-respected, well-connected wikipedia authors at that), turns out to have been truly horrible and embarrassing. I would have blocked the culprits on the spot, had I noticed it back then. I do feel we need to discuss some consequences of this case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have to agree with PD here (and was just about to post something to that effect at ANI, when people told me the matter was already discussed here). This BLP subject was treated with an incredible amount of aggression, condescension and scorn by the main article author, User:Dr. Blofeld, and the fact that the complaint was then summarily dismissed and brushed off by no other than Dr. Blofeld's perennial tag-team partner User:SchroCat, acting like a cynical bad cop / good cop pair, is just the icing on the cake. I would have blocked both users on the spot, had I noticed the case back at the time. I do believe it is vital that Wikipedia be seen doing the right thing here, even when under unfair attack from the Mail. A public apology to this article subject on behalf of Wikipedia should be the least thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:06 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging.

Needless to say, the IP was blocked for a week under WP:NLT. No doubt, if he'd created an account he'd have been indeffed.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:12 pm

lilburne wrote:Newspapers are essentially ephemeral and they deal exclusively in the now. Thus anything that is sourced to a newspaper article, of any date, is by its very nature RECENTISM.

That's largely true, but not always. An obituary is usually a reasonable source, and the same applies to many other items that are not news stories. And even with a news item, if it's about a topic that deserves a substantial article it can be dug out of the archives years later and provide relevant information.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:23 pm

Tarc wrote: Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

I was starting to picture a lordly professor thinking he was speaking to vermin. Dr. Blofeld

Well he certainly had Blofeld's number

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:33 pm

lilburne wrote:
Tarc wrote: Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

I was starting to picture a lordly professor thinking he was speaking to vermin. Dr. Blofeld
Well he certainly had Blofeld's number

He must be very stupid. He is still insisting that he didn’t realise who the IP was, quite forgetting that, right from the very beginning, he was calling him a snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author.

Embarrassed or amused? Without somebody like me here a lot of our articles would soon rot and be taken over by idiots. I can assure you that I'm generally well-supported here, in fact some 50 odd people have recently supported me on something I'm running in October. On the contrary, you ought to be concerned by how pompous and downright ''rude'' you are. I'm well-qualified thankyou very much, just not some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author. You're quite a repellant creature aren't you? If you dropped the nastiness and started speaking to people as equals and showing a bit of respect it might be reciprocated.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 06:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:18 am

Peter Damian wrote:Just out. ‘Two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes’
Interestingly it mentions Dr Blofeld (T-C-L), who is the author of this edit in April 2015, nearly two years ago.
In the spring of 1979, due to intense lighting used by Kubrick, the set burst into flames and destroyed the building [i.e. the Timberline Lodge]; it had to be completely rebuilt.
As far as I can tell, this is complete fiction. It is still there. Note the spurious citation (Baxter 1997, p. 321). …

It's not so much spurious as carelessly or incompetently incomplete. The reference cited is Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, by John Baxter, an apparently well-regarded biography, whose page 321 does say that the intense lighting Kubrick used in filming part of The Shining caused the set to burst into flames. So the material is not complete fiction. But neither could it be called accurate. The source does not say that the building was destroyed, merely the set and part of the studio roof. The statement "it had to be completely rebuilt" is also misleading. What the source says is that, contrary to the studio management's expectations that Kubrick would go somewhere else to complete the few close-ups remaining to be done, he insisted that the building be repaired (not "rebuilt" ) and the set (not the "building") rebuilt.

Also, unlike the Wikipedia article, the book makes it clear that it was not on location at the Timberline Lodge (T-H-L) where the fire occurrred, but during a studio shoot at Elstree Etudios (T-H-L) in Hertfordshire. A relatively charitable explanation of the inaccuracies in the edit is that Dr Blofeld, knowing that the set was a mock-up of the interior of one room (the Colorado Lounge) of the Timberline Lodge, was carelessly referring to it as "the building" without realising that this was almost certain to mislead his readers.

Here's a verbatim quotation of the relevant material from Baxter's book:

John Baxter, on p.321 of [i]Stanley Kubrick: A Biography[/i] wrote: Not for the first time on a Kubrick film, intense lighting resulted in immense heat. Even with the air-conditioning at full blast, the seven hundred thousand watts pouring through the windows of the Colorado Lounge pushed the temperature up to 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
The set finally burst into flames and was completely destroyed, along with part of the studio roof. Only a few close-ups remained to be shot, and the Elstree management expected Kubrick to shoot them elsewhere. Vain hope. Kubrick was adamant that the building be repaired and the set rebuilt.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:15 am

lonza leggiera wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:Just out. ‘Two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes’
Interestingly it mentions Dr Blofeld (T-C-L), who is the author of this edit in April 2015, nearly two years ago.
In the spring of 1979, due to intense lighting used by Kubrick, the set burst into flames and destroyed the building [i.e. the Timberline Lodge]; it had to be completely rebuilt.
As far as I can tell, this is complete fiction. It is still there. Note the spurious citation (Baxter 1997, p. 321). …
It's not so much spurious as carelessly or incompetently incomplete. The reference cited is Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, by John Baxter, an apparently well-regarded biography, whose page 321 does say that the intense lighting Kubrick used in filming part of The Shining caused the set to burst into flames. So the material is not complete fiction. But neither could it be called accurate. The source does not say that the building was destroyed, merely the set and part of the studio roof. The statement "it had to be completely rebuilt" is also misleading. What the source says is that, contrary to the studio management's expectations that Kubrick would go somewhere else to complete the few close-ups remaining to be done, he insisted that the building be repaired (not "rebuilt" ) and the set (not the "building") rebuilt.

Also, unlike the Wikipedia article, the book makes it clear that it was not on location at the Timberline Lodge (T-H-L) where the fire occurrred, but during a studio shoot at Elstree Etudios (T-H-L) in Hertfordshire. A relatively charitable explanation of the inaccuracies in the edit is that Dr Blofeld, knowing that the set was a mock-up of the interior of one room (the Colorado Lounge) of the Timberline Lodge, was carelessly referring to it as "the building" without realising that this was almost certain to mislead his readers.

Here's a verbatim quotation of the relevant material from Baxter's book:
John Baxter, on p.321 of [i]Stanley Kubrick: A Biography[/i] wrote: Not for the first time on a Kubrick film, intense lighting resulted in immense heat. Even with the air-conditioning at full blast, the seven hundred thousand watts pouring through the windows of the Colorado Lounge pushed the temperature up to 110 degrees Fahrenheit.
The set finally burst into flames and was completely destroyed, along with part of the studio roof. Only a few close-ups remained to be shot, and the Elstree management expected Kubrick to shoot them elsewhere. Vain hope. Kubrick was adamant that the building be repaired and the set rebuilt.

Yes. The definite description 'the building', which at the end of a paragraph almost entirely about the Timberline lodge building, and the exterior shots, can only refer to that building, not the set or its building. So, not a malicious edit, merely a careless one. McCann's complaint was entirely about the careless and slipshod nature of the article.

I note Jimmy has yet to reply.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:59 pm

lilburne wrote:
Tarc wrote: Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

I was starting to picture a lordly professor thinking he was speaking to vermin. Dr. Blofeld
Well he certainly had Blofeld's number

Wait, didn't Blofeld quit Wikipedia six years ago, when Jimbo offended him?

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
lilburne wrote:
Tarc wrote: Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

I was starting to picture a lordly professor thinking he was speaking to vermin. Dr. Blofeld
Well he certainly had Blofeld's number
Wait, didn't Blofeld quit Wikipedia six years ago, when Jimbo offended him?

No. He just quit that discussion.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:08 pm

Tarc wrote:Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?

In fact the drama boards have been utterly silent on the matter.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:33 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
I'm well-qualified thankyou very much, just not some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author. You're quite a repellant creature aren't you? If you dropped the nastiness and started speaking to people as equals and showing a bit of respect it might be reciprocated.

So much for no personal attacks, no biting newbies and so forth.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:00 am

Surprise, surprise, Blofeld is unblocked. And back to his usual habits. From his latest article, Hilda Perleno (T-H-L):

A 1920 census mentions a Hilda Perlino living in St Clair, Illinois, and year of birth, about 1902

Short of formatting this in flashing red text (can you do that in Wikipedia?) it couldn't be more blatant. Original research. Blofeld doesn't have any evidence that this is the same person, but slaps it in anyway. If the Daily Mail wants to pick a fight with Blofeld, they are going for an easy target, since he is the personification of the quantity-over-quality approach.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:21 am

Ming wrote:
Tarc wrote:Looks like FuturePerf just tossed Dr. Blowhard for 2 weeks. Shall we count the time between now and the ANI shitstorm initiated by his cohorts and wiki-buddies in minutes?
In fact the drama boards have been utterly silent on the matter.

Yes, just a little dusting on his talk page and on Jimbo's, is all. Surprising.

5 new articles in ~3 hours as soon as he's unblocked, too. What a strange little wiki-gnome.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:58 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:Surprise, surprise, Blofeld is unblocked. And back to his usual habits. From his latest article, Hilda Perleno (T-H-L):
A 1920 census mentions a Hilda Perlino living in St Clair, Illinois, and year of birth, about 1902
Short of formatting this in flashing red text (can you do that in Wikipedia?) it couldn't be more blatant. Original research. Blofeld doesn't have any evidence that this is the same person, but slaps it in anyway. If the Daily Mail wants to pick a fight with Blofeld, they are going for an easy target, since he is the personification of the quantity-over-quality approach.

It's OK; Mangoe removed it: "remove OR on birth per unspeakable site". He must be working closely with Yngvadottir.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:42 pm

It's OK; Mangoe removed it: "remove OR on birth per unspeakable site". He must be working closely with Yngvadottir.[/quote]

And I see that someone has likewise removed the Wikilink Blofeld put in the article for Dan Michaels (T-H-L). The guy is either incompetent, or doesn't actually give a fuck about getting things remotely right. Or possibly both.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:56 am

Peter Damian wrote:But it’s all fine. According to Guy (T-C-L), if the Mail finds significant errors and identifies the sources, Wikipedia can fix them, and Wikipedia wins.

Actually, in the long run, this is true — as anyone attempting to sustain "factual errors on WP" threads on this site probably knows well.

RfB

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:35 pm

Interesting Wikipediocracy thread (May 22, 2016 8:02 pm) about Blofeld, with allegations of paid editing.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:30 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:But it’s all fine. According to Guy (T-C-L), if the Mail finds significant errors and identifies the sources, Wikipedia can fix them, and Wikipedia wins.
Actually, in the long run, this is true — as anyone attempting to sustain "factual errors on WP" threads on this site probably knows well.

RfB

I remember a feature in The Times where several distinguished authors pointed out inaccuracies in articles. Wikipedians roundly condemned them for not fixing the articles. Possibly that's the origin of SOFIXIT.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:44 am

Now archived. Jimmy has not answered my question.

@Jimbo Wales: McCann asked 'I wonder if Jimmy Wales knows how his volunteers behave on here?'. Would you like to answer? Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:45 am

Poetlister wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:But it’s all fine. According to Guy (T-C-L), if the Mail finds significant errors and identifies the sources, Wikipedia can fix them, and Wikipedia wins.
Actually, in the long run, this is true — as anyone attempting to sustain "factual errors on WP" threads on this site probably knows well.

RfB
I remember a feature in The Times where several distinguished authors pointed out inaccuracies in articles. Wikipedians roundly condemned them for not fixing the articles. Possibly that's the origin of SOFIXIT.

That argument has always been quite aggravating, as the actual problem is the amount of time that the inaccuracies remain in place and publicly visible. The "sofixit" cheerleaders have never understood this.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:36 pm

Tarc wrote:That argument has always been quite aggravating, as the actual problem is the amount of time that the inaccuracies remain in place and publicly visible. The "sofixit" cheerleaders have never understood this.

There is also the fact that if a handful of articles selected at random all have errors (and I can't remember how these articles were chosen so they might not be random), it casts serious doubt on the whole site. To which the cheerleaders reply that all reference works have errors and with Wikipedia they can be speedily corrected, as in "Wikipedia - always improving".

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:41 pm

Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:02 pm

Tarc wrote:Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039

Judging by his contribution count, he either already has an alternate account or is about burned out...

link https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?us ... ipedia.org[/link]

RfB

Unread post by **tarantino** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Tarc wrote:Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039
Judging by his contribution count, he either already has an alternate account or is about burned out...

link https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?us ... ipedia.org[/link]
RfB

See Tibetan_Prayer (T-C-L)

Disgruntled haddock · Unread post by **Disgruntled haddock** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:00 pm

Tarc wrote:Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039

But not before violating his topic ban! How dense is this guy? (Side note: how do we feel about his shout-out to "Wikipediaocracy"?)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:15 pm

Someone on WP discovered "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch". This WR thread refers.

How dense is this guy?

Be careful. He says he has an IQ of 149.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:16 am

I don't think this has been mentioned yet.

While looking for that link, I also noticed there's this one, which rather nicely mimics intelligent people saying stupid things.*

*I have a first in that

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:18 am

Peter Damian wrote:Someone on WP discovered "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch". This WR thread refers.

How dense is this guy?
Be careful. He says he has an IQ of 149.

So "Andy the Grump is exactly one of the reasons why I don't actually produce much content here any more"? Really? How exactly does someone who's only input to Wikipedia since retiring in September 2015 has been a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar (as an IP, which presumably even a man with an IQ of 149 couldn't identify as mine) have any influence on what Blofeld does? Pathetic...

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:41 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:How exactly does someone who's only input to Wikipedia since retiring in September 2015 has been a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar...

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:03 pm

thekohser wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:How exactly does someone who's only input to Wikipedia since retiring in September 2015 has been a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar...

Aha! We have "a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar"! Have we discovered Blofeld's secret identity? :irony:

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:03 pm

Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:How exactly does someone who's only input to Wikipedia since retiring in September 2015 has been a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar...

Aha! We have "a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar"! Have we discovered Blofeld's secret identity?

Doh! Mea culpa. Sadly the greengrocers' apostrophe is getting so common that I rarely notice them any more, and it appears they have infected me too. Maybe one day they will become the accepted norm, and we can all find something else to slip up on.

As for me being Blofeld, it's an interesting theory. I'll deny it of course, though I would, wouldn't I...

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:41 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:How exactly does someone who's only input to Wikipedia since retiring in September 2015 has been a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar...

Aha! We have "a few minor corrections to typo's or grammar"! Have we discovered Blofeld's secret identity?
Doh! Mea culpa. Sadly the greengrocers' apostrophe is getting so common that I rarely notice them any more, and it appears they have infected me too. Maybe one day they will become the accepted norm, and we can all find something else to slip up on.

As for me being Blofeld, it's an interesting theory. I'll deny it of course, though I would, wouldn't I...

Great response from Andy -- all in good fun!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:33 pm

GrumpTheGrammarButcher wrote: Maybe one day they will become the accepted norm, and we can all find something else to slip up on.

Dangling preposition!!! Dangling preposition!!!

</sarcasm>

RfB

collect · Unread post by **collect** » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:11 pm

Tarc wrote:Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039

What is très amusant is the fact that he posted on his own talk page:

"As he won't take a hint, I'm going to shame [[User:Collect]] here to over 400 page watchers, some whom may respect [[User:Collect]]. Would any decent editor here claim to have promoted an article to GA with just [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articl ... ipedia.org 15 edits in total]. All he did was complain about how bad the Cary Grant article was and even tried to get it delisted, see Eric's talk page and the GAR. This editor is an absolute ''joke'' and as dishonest as they come. I strongly recommend you ignore him whenever you see him about. He could not contribute a good article or decent content if his life depended on it. All he does is sit around moaning about sources and other editors

Wer ist ein Troller hier?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:11 pm

collect wrote:
Tarc wrote:Dr. Blofeld is getting ready to duck behind the curtain and reappear under a new name;

OK, I've been trolled enough with this account now. I think it's time to move on. Can an adminstrator please delete all of my account pages. I've been thinking of doing this a while because I'm tired of the trolling from the likes of Singora and Collect but I feel like my identity is being threatened through fellow wiki editors threatening to contact writers of anti Wiki articles. Enough is enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =771965039

What is très amusant is the fact that he posted on his own talk page:

"As he won't take a hint, I'm going to shame [[User:Collect]] here to over 400 page watchers, some whom may respect [[User:Collect]]. Would any decent editor here claim to have promoted an article to GA with just [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articl ... ipedia.org 15 edits in total]. All he did was complain about how bad the Cary Grant article was and even tried to get it delisted, see Eric's talk page and the GAR. This editor is an absolute ''joke'' and as dishonest as they come. I strongly recommend you ignore him whenever you see him about. He could not contribute a good article or decent content if his life depended on it. All he does is sit around moaning about sources and other editors

Wer ist ein Troller hier?

I am intrigued by the kindly fuck off thing, indeed by the whole talk page. As far as I can make out (not easy) Blofeld rebuilds the whole Cary Grant (T-H-L) article using a single, rather bad book as a source. You and Eric challenge him, then all the toys come out of the pram. Or was there some history to this?