The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
I would consider it a valid reason if one's earlier real-named account was blocked unfairly and without explanation by the Wikitribune management. If they are not willing to hold up their end of the social contract, then the user should not be expected to abide by their preferences about names.Kingsindian wrote:I suppose it is a "strong preference" rather than a "policy". I don't know how it works exactly, but the way I read it is that people are expected to use their real names, unless there is some serious overriding reason.
Now, I challenge anyone to send an e-mail to that address. Tell us what happens. (That's right, the e-mail account hasn't even been set up. They're blocking accounts with no remorse, but they haven't even set up the process by which a blocked user and "stay calm and send an email". As with so many things with Wikitribune (and other Jimbo projects), it's just a bunch of promises based on falsehood.If you get blocked and feel that the block is wrong or unfair, please stay calm and send an email. We’ll have a lot of new admins and it will take some time to get it right. Email: blocking@wikitribune.com
No, he's admitting tht he finds it difficult. That's not the same thing at all.thekohser wrote:Jimmy seems to be admitting that Wikitribune is too difficult to edit from mobile platforms.
Silly Jimbo. If he were truly the tech visionary at least some of the press and public thinks he is, he would be working on AI writing the news. Humans doing anything is so 2001. Jimbo's got exactly one hit song, and that hit was a cover tune, not even an original. And he keeps releasing this one song over and over and over again. Maybe he'll finally go away after Tribune fades completely from memory.Poetlister wrote:No, he's admitting tht he finds it difficult. That's not the same thing at all.thekohser wrote:Jimmy seems to be admitting that Wikitribune is too difficult to edit from mobile platforms.
Unlikely. He has to earn (or at least acquire) a substantial income to maintain his lifestyle and look after his wife, ex-wives and children.Soldado Sin Nombre wrote:Maybe he'll finally go away after Tribune fades completely from memory.
Oh, dear, will the Koolaide Kids now want to remove her WP page?tarantino wrote:Wikitribune's first hire is moving on.
It would be grossly wrong to remove someone's page just because they left a job. It is a cardinal principle of Wikipedia that notability is forever; once notable, always notable. Deleting the article would be stupid, petty and infantile. Surely Wikipedians aren't like that.Randy from Boise wrote:Oh, dear, will the Koolaide Kids now want to remove her WP page?tarantino wrote:Wikitribune's first hire is moving on.
I presume my deletion nomination closed No Consensus or Keep, I should check before I post, huh?
RfB
P.S. No consensus.
Fluff bios about the Wikipederati are held to an extremely malleable standard in which the insiders who create and uphold the pages are free to be fickle...Poetlister wrote:It would be grossly wrong to remove someone's page just because they left a job. It is a cardinal principle of Wikipedia that notability is forever; once notable, always notable. Deleting the article would be stupid, petty and infantile. Surely Wikipedians aren't like that.Randy from Boise wrote:Oh, dear, will the Koolaide Kids now want to remove her WP page?tarantino wrote:Wikitribune's first hire is moving on.
I presume my deletion nomination closed No Consensus or Keep, I should check before I post, huh?
RfB
P.S. No consensus.
Having said that, I expect that she'd be happy to have the bit about her sterilisation removed.
Let's not be so formal. Just call her something like Carol.Renée Bagslint wrote:Wikitribune's latest scoop: sex robots. Clearly the most important thing happening in the world today, and not at all creepy. Thanks to Ms Desk for the tip.
They have solved the obvious problem of being a "wiki" news organization by not being a real wiki. Just like they are avoiding the problems of being a WP-style community by not being a community. I guess that's a logical play, but let's see if those starry-eyed simps who donated money for a pig in a poke will continue to contribute...Poetlister wrote:Maybe I'm missing something but how do you read the history of a story? Here's the history of a recent article. It was written by staff journalist Jack Barton and then amended by staff journalist Linh Nguyen, but what changes did she make? Scroll down to the bottom of her page to see her recent contributions. Like the history, it just says that she made "edits".
Well, her headlines do suggest she's not a fan of Bitcoin. But I guess nobody is. And it must be said in fairness that her headlines are less... um... leading than this thread title.Poetlister wrote:journalist Linh Nguyen
Alex Hern (The Guardian) wrote:(The n)etwork’s estimated power use also exceeds that of 19 other European countries, consuming more than five times (the) output of (the) continent’s largest windfarm. (source)
Something that you should not be able to determine from an allegedly neutral publication.Bezdomni wrote:Well, her headlines do suggest she's not a fan of Bitcoin.
Wiki-tribune is not immune to the urge to be modern: the both/and and presumably neither/nor of this pitch for papers and interviews on quantum computing sounds pretty modern and funded.Bezdomni wrote:Well, her headlines do suggest she's not a fan of Bitcoin. But I guess nobody is. And it must be said in fairness that her headlines are less... um... leading than this thread title.Poetlister wrote:journalist Linh Nguyen
Alex Hern (The Guardian) wrote:(The n)etwork’s estimated power use also exceeds that of 19 other European countries, consuming more than five times (the) output of (the) continent’s largest windfarm. (source)
Obviously, Wikitribune should borrow a few things from Wikipedia, such as reliable sourcing.Renée Bagslint wrote:So the biggest contributor to the list of suggestions for this article is someone who believes he has a method to break RSA, and has published it on Reddit, that well-known scientific journal. Why would anyone imagine the WikiTribune model would be immune to the same forces as the Wikipedia model, namely that it is at the mercy of cranks, charlatans, zealots, lunatics, and people with any and all sorts of axe to grind? The journalist who is going to write about it has a background in the humanities but covers technology. What could possibly go wrong?
Jimbo Wales in a recent email to Wikitribiune subscribers wrote:The short version:
We're going radically wiki and if you visit the home page right now you'll see that you can now login and instantly edit drafts which are live on the homepage, as well as stories that have already been published. Please try it now - just find something and make some small improvement, and let me know what it was like! You can do so on the site, but also join our Slack channel!
The long version:
Way back in the olden days, before Wikipedia, I had a project to build a free encyclopedia for everyone, in their own language, written by volunteers. Because I didn't understand how to build online communities back then, we designed a very complex and intimidating system which make it hard for people to participate. What we did publish was very high quality, but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
Then I went radical and turned it into a wiki, and the rest is history. We got more done in two weeks, than we had in almost two years.
So then I started WikiTribune. I listened to advice that we had to be very controlled. We had to have a complex review process. We basically ended up building Nupedia again. doh! It was beautiful and what we published was of high quality - but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
So, Orit and I have undertaken a radical redesign of the site - not just the look but the actual operation. And we aren't done yet. The push is to turn over genuine control to the community, to let people work live without a net. It's about trusting you, and it's about welcoming you.
So please, come and edit. Make some small change today. Click on 'add a new story' and add something that you find interesting. Be neutral. Cite your sources. Let's work together to do something radical.
--Jimbo
P.S. - As you will have seen from all of those emails, GDPR has come into effect. We've updated our privacy policies, and you can read them here.
The mildly successful supplemental real live news site had reasonably big fixed costs and doubtlessly didn't inspire any fanatic loyalty in its readers... Now he's going for the big score, or something...Zoloft wrote:Jimbo Wales is tossing his original concept for Wikitribune overboard like a dead rat:
Jimbo Wales in a recent email to Wikitribiune subscribers wrote:The short version:
We're going radically wiki and if you visit the home page right now you'll see that you can now login and instantly edit drafts which are live on the homepage, as well as stories that have already been published. Please try it now - just find something and make some small improvement, and let me know what it was like! You can do so on the site, but also join our Slack channel!
The long version:
Way back in the olden days, before Wikipedia, I had a project to build a free encyclopedia for everyone, in their own language, written by volunteers. Because I didn't understand how to build online communities back then, we designed a very complex and intimidating system which make it hard for people to participate. What we did publish was very high quality, but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
Then I went radical and turned it into a wiki, and the rest is history. We got more done in two weeks, than we had in almost two years.
So then I started WikiTribune. I listened to advice that we had to be very controlled. We had to have a complex review process. We basically ended up building Nupedia again. doh! It was beautiful and what we published was of high quality - but we didn't really have genuine community control, and we didn't get very much work done.
So, Orit and I have undertaken a radical redesign of the site - not just the look but the actual operation. And we aren't done yet. The push is to turn over genuine control to the community, to let people work live without a net. It's about trusting you, and it's about welcoming you.
So please, come and edit. Make some small change today. Click on 'add a new story' and add something that you find interesting. Be neutral. Cite your sources. Let's work together to do something radical.
--Jimbo
P.S. - As you will have seen from all of those emails, GDPR has come into effect. We've updated our privacy policies, and you can read them here.
BULLSHIIT!!! You had a project to build an internet encyclopedia that you could saddle down with advertising so you could make lots of mon-neeeee!!!JW wrote:I had a project to build a free encyclopedia for everyone...
Two complete fucking lies...JW wrote:...in their own language, written by volunteers.
Whose language was being used?Randy from Boise wrote:Two complete fucking lies...JW wrote:...in their own language, written by volunteers.
I really don't follow what you're trying to say.Poetlister wrote:Whose language was being used?Randy from Boise wrote:Two complete fucking lies...JW wrote:...in their own language, written by volunteers.
I think he's trying to say that the "in their own language" part is true, or at least true enough to not be considered a complete fucking lie. The fact that they run Wikipedias in multiple languages isn't necessarily a good thing, but they do run them in multiple languages, so...Randy from Boise wrote:I really don't follow what you're trying to say.
At what point in the history of Nupedia was it anything but an English-language encyclopedia? Where did Jimmy Wales ever, in his entire life, relate his plan or desire for a multilingual Nupedia?Midsize Jake wrote:I think he's trying to say that the "in their own language" part is true, or at least true enough to not be considered a complete fucking lie. The fact that they run Wikipedias in multiple languages isn't necessarily a good thing, but they do run them in multiple languages, so...Randy from Boise wrote:I really don't follow what you're trying to say.
JW originally wrote:Way back in the olden days, before Wikipedia, I had a project to build a free encyclopedia for everyone, in their own language, written by volunteers.
There were those women in the Russian massage parlor that one time...?Poetlister wrote:That's easy to explain. To Jimbo, people who don't speak English don't exist. He's never talked to any.
Lol. Wikinews for profit is not working, I wonder why.Randy from Boise wrote:Well, I take it that the professional journalists are gone and that Wiki Tribune is now “The Daily News Briefing Anyone Can Edit.”™®
I'm sure that’s a more lucrative business model...
Every time I've been on Wikinews, almost nobody besides SVTCobra (T-C-L) and Pi zero (T-C-L) were doing anything.Dysklyver wrote:Lol. Wikinews for profit is not working, I wonder why.Randy from Boise wrote:Well, I take it that the professional journalists are gone and that Wiki Tribune is now “The Daily News Briefing Anyone Can Edit.”™®
I'm sure that’s a more lucrative business model...
There are also some serious technical problems with the site...
Wales' biggest hire, journalist Peter Bale (T-H-L), left wikitribune in April. Milowent, who created Bale's bio, has yet to update it with this fact.Wikitribune is losing money. Crowdfunding the site isn’t working (yet). On June 4, Wales shared a version of a presentation he’d just given to his team in London. One slide shows that the site is receiving around 20 donations per month. It’s hard to reconcile this with the Financial Times report in December that “on its current monthly run rate, WikiTribune is on course to generate about £800,000 in revenue over the next year,” unless those donations average around $3,333. (Wales estimates that, for every 500 monthly supporters at $15/month, he can hire one journalist.) “We aren’t focused on [money] yet,” Wales wrote in the slide deck. “Right now the only thing I care about is building the community. Happy to lose money for now. (Ouch, though!)”
It all depends what you mean by "on course to generate". Maybe the presumed course is that donations will double or triple every month.Wikitribune is losing money. Crowdfunding the site isn’t working (yet). On June 4, Wales shared a version of a presentation he’d just given to his team in London. One slide shows that the site is receiving around 20 donations per month. It’s hard to reconcile this with the Financial Times report in December that “on its current monthly run rate, WikiTribune is on course to generate about £800,000 in revenue over the next year,” unless those donations average around $3,333.
I've still got dibs on "crowdsourced pizza delivery" from last time.Randy from Boise wrote:Place your bets now on the next JW entrepreneurial catastrophe...
I truly think Jimbo thought he would get into the Google "real news" slot and thus be minted. But clearly Google has moved on as you say, and the wiki idea is not interesting to them anymore.Graaf Statler wrote:The main problem is of course Google didn't put Wikitribune in a top position, because Goole is the only one who can make a Wiki product big. (Or break it down.) But parasite wiki systems are not interesting for them anymore, because if in september that article 11 and 13 passes, they can't using wiki content anymore. Because it overrules article 230 what protects them in Europe, so they have no reason to invest in it anymore. And there is a huge change other continents follow soon because they are all copy cats with legalisation. And then all those wikiproduckts are soon forgotten and disappear somewhere deep in the internet where nobody notice them anymore, what now has happend with that Wikitribune. Fake news was a short time a hype after the last American elections, but now a days nobody is talking about fake news anymore.
And sweet dreams of a free internet are nice, but it are only dreams, because it is a illusion to think a American foundation can stop a democratic proces what is going on from 2014, that will not happend. Content will be filtered, and in a decade it is everywhere the matter, also in America.
If it offers stuff of the same quality as Wikiversity, how could it fail?Randy from Boise wrote:I'm calling: crowd-sourced university, for which "students" pay tuition to him, to receive instruction from volunteer "educators."
The name Wikiversity has already been used. Maybe he can call it the Wikinstitute of Wikication...
RfB
No it's quite different. I think it's a little like word online, but it's much more basic.Poetlister wrote:is this wonderful new editor similar to our old friend the Visual Editor?