Never been valuable as a criticism site

[Peter Damian]

Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =542607390

[Hex]

The story has now been picked up by The Signpost, which has republished that comment, along with Kevin's comment for Examiner.com, and this comment on the whole affair that they requested from Cla68, which I thought was great:

I can't imagine how corrupt and incorrigible Wikipedia's administration would be if not for WR and Wikipediocracy. These two forums have exposed so many issues that Wikipedia's and the Wikimedia Foundation's administrations have tried to sweep under the rug, including mailing list cabals, BLP abuses, COI abuses, and unethical shenanigans in at least one of the foundation's chapter organizations. ... Editors who speak up on-wiki about abuses have often been threatened with sanctions, blocks, or bans or been ganged-up on by cabals of activist editors. I have personally experienced it, so I know how it feels. Having an independent forum allows people a place to expose and highlight issues that need to be addressed where they can't be bullied or intimidated. I believe the threat of exposure has influenced Wikipedia's administration, the foundation, and chapter organizations to be more transparent and straightforward in their operations and procedures.

[Vigilant]

Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =542607390

I'm guessing the whole Fae/Ash/Speedoguy/flickr washing/copyvio/etc, etc with Ashley van Haeften would have miraculously just spring to light had we not said anything.

*sigh*

[Hersch]

I can't imagine how corrupt and incorrigible Wikipedia's administration would be if not for WR and Wikipediocracy. These two forums have exposed so many issues that Wikipedia's and the Wikimedia Foundation's administrations have tried to sweep under the rug, including mailing list cabals, BLP abuses, COI abuses, and unethical shenanigans in at least one of the foundation's chapter organizations. ... Editors who speak up on-wiki about abuses have often been threatened with sanctions, blocks, or bans or been ganged-up on by cabals of activist editors. I have personally experienced it, so I know how it feels. Having an independent forum allows people a place to expose and highlight issues that need to be addressed where they can't be bullied or intimidated. I believe the threat of exposure has influenced Wikipedia's administration, the foundation, and chapter organizations to be more transparent and straightforward in their operations and procedures.

[Volunteer Marek]

Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =542607390

It would be useful to address that statement by compiling the things that WO *has* done - and I do think there are several, including Commons related stuff.

[lilburne]

It would be useful to address that statement by compiling the things that WO *has* done - and I do think there are several, including Commons related stuff.

Valid criticism should be done in such a way that egregious problems can be covered up or papered over before they reach the press. The kiddie porn should be hidden before Fox News gets to hear about it. The conflicts of interest should be hushed up and not plastered all over the media. Gin and tonics with dictators should happen behind closed doors and not trumpeted in the Telegraph and the Mail before they can occur.

Yes indeed valid criticism should be deferential, silent, and above all hidden.

[Peter Damian]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ One of the policies of Wikipedia is that blocking is only used to prevent disruptive edits, so once the threat of disruption was removed, the block became unnecessary. The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page. All the while, discussion raged on that page about what should be done with him, of course he was unable to respond. I find this situation offends my sense of natural justice, and is one of the more obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

A fine quote, but they strenuously avoid actually linking to the Examiner piece, of course. When was that thing last year when the whole internet and all the non-English media were talking about some footballer's naughtiness, the UK press were unable to talk about it, and the whole of the free culture world was cheering and clapping about how the internet was 'routing around censorship'.

[Hex]

A fine quote, but they strenuously avoid actually linking to the Examiner piece, of course. When was that thing last year when the whole internet and all the non-English media were talking about some footballer's naughtiness, the UK press were unable to talk about it, and the whole of the free culture world was cheering and clapping about how the internet was 'routing around censorship'.

Anyone up for betting when this or some future ArbCom will implement superinjunctions on Wikipedia?

[DanMurphy]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ One of the policies of Wikipedia is that blocking is only used to prevent disruptive edits, so once the threat of disruption was removed, the block became unnecessary. The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page. All the while, discussion raged on that page about what should be done with him, of course he was unable to respond. I find this situation offends my sense of natural justice, and is one of the more obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

A fine quote, but they strenuously avoid actually linking to the Examiner piece, of course. When was that thing last year when the whole internet and all the non-English media were talking about some footballer's naughtiness, the UK press were unable to talk about it, and the whole of the free culture world was cheering and clapping about how the internet was 'routing around censorship'.

Ah, yes. "The internet perceives censorship as damage."

(Though of course, as stupid as that sentiment is, Wikipedia is a closed, hierarchical system, not the paradise of nerd-dreams).

[Zoloft]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ One of the policies of Wikipedia is that blocking is only used to prevent disruptive edits, so once the threat of disruption was removed, the block became unnecessary. The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page. All the while, discussion raged on that page about what should be done with him, of course he was unable to respond. I find this situation offends my sense of natural justice, and is one of the more obnoxious aspects of Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

A fine quote, but they strenuously avoid actually linking to the Examiner piece, of course. When was that thing last year when the whole internet and all the non-English media were talking about some footballer's naughtiness, the UK press were unable to talk about it, and the whole of the free culture world was cheering and clapping about how the internet was 'routing around censorship'.

Ah, yes. "The internet perceives censorship as damage."

(Though of course, as stupid as that sentiment is, Wikipedia is a closed, hierarchical system, not the paradise of nerd-dreams).

We're not damage to Wikipedia, we're damage control.

[Michaeldsuarez]

It would be useful to address that statement by compiling the things that WO *has* done - and I do think there are several, including Commons related stuff.

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3

Wikipediocracy's first birthday is coming up. You guys should prepare a blog entry discussing Wikipediocracy and its accomplishments over the past year.

[thekohser]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ ...The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

They misquoted the quote. Even in The Signpost, they are so worried about WP:OUTING, they'll even change a quote attributed to someone else.

[Peter Damian]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ ...The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

They misquoted the quote. Even in The Signpost, they are so worried about WP:OUTING, they'll even change a quote attributed to someone else.

Ha ha! Yes, in the Examiner it says 'Ainsworth' (just to spell it out).

[Kevin]

I love this

" For his part, Kevin told the website Examiner.com (in an article written by banned English Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs):
“ ...The other reason [for unblocking] is that [Cla] was blocked from responding on his own talk page....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... _and_notes

They misquoted the quote. Even in The Signpost, they are so worried about WP:OUTING, they'll even change a quote attributed to someone else.

I missed that rewriting of the quote. Doesn't the BLP policy there prevent them from quoting people without backing it up? I have to ask because my grasp of policy is a little flakey of late.

[thekohser]

Hey, on that Signpost in the comments, Silver seren says:

Criticism is criticism. Actual constructive criticism of Wikipedia's purpose, its aims, how it goes about things, and individual incidents is fine. But Wikipediocracy doesn't go for that. All Wikipediocracy is about is the ad hominem, the insult. The purpose of it, or at least the purpose that it has ended up expressing, is to insult as many people on Wikipedia as possible, to dig up as much dirt (or what they think is dirt) as possible, and to then attack the editors they dislike as much as possible. That is Wikipediocracy in a nutshell. SilverserenC 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone should remind him (publicly) that on January 4, 2013, in response to a Wikipediocracy timeline, Silver seren left a comment on that blog post, saying:

I thought this was a really interesting timeline. I’m fully behind Andreas on this one.

So, we can confirm (and Marek should appreciate this), that Silver seren is a "contributor" to Wikipediocracy, and that he is "fully behind" some of our work here.

[Vigilant]

Hey, on that Signpost in the comments, Silver seren says:

Criticism is criticism. Actual constructive criticism of Wikipedia's purpose, its aims, how it goes about things, and individual incidents is fine. But Wikipediocracy doesn't go for that. All Wikipediocracy is about is the ad hominem, the insult. The purpose of it, or at least the purpose that it has ended up expressing, is to insult as many people on Wikipedia as possible, to dig up as much dirt (or what they think is dirt) as possible, and to then attack the editors they dislike as much as possible. That is Wikipediocracy in a nutshell. SilverserenC 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone should remind him (publicly) that on January 4, 2013, in response to a Wikipediocracy timeline, Silver seren left a comment on that blog post, saying:

I thought this was a really interesting timeline. I’m fully behind Andreas on this one.

So, we can confirm (and Marek should appreciate this), that Silver seren is a "contributor" to Wikipediocracy, and that he is "fully behind" some of our work here.

Talk about dilution of effort.

It would certainly be worth the effort to review your timeline to see just where you'd made the crucial mistake.
Or it could be the case of the blind pig finding an acorn now and then.

[EricBarbour]

Or it could be the case of the blind pig finding an acorn now and then.

That's more descriptive. And I wish Cla would stop using that word "cabal". A "cabal" would by some definition have to demonstrate
competence in its corrupt operations. Wikipedia gangs are anything but "competent".

[DanMurphy]

I must have shared this before. But I'm going to share it again. My all time favorite clip from The Sopranos.

(For people who don't know the show, the woman is the wife of the mobster the show revolves around. She doesn't participate directly in his crimes.. and yet, and yet. Carmela Soprano is all those people stuffing the ears with cotton wool and poking out their eyes - and screaming for the heads of the 'bad people' when they say true things about mates like Mr. Bibby. On our best days, we're the shrink -- mostly because of his last line in the clip.)

[The Adversary]

Speaking personally, and having been around long enough to have seen the damage caused to the project by the original BADSITES practices (not to mention the rebound popularity of the "forbidden" sites), I am not particularly in favour of knee-jerk removal of all links to such sites. On the other hand, I'm also pretty much opposed to providing them with much of a platform here, particularly given the poor quality of their blogs and the discourse in the forums. Unfortunately, WO has never really been terribly valuable as a criticism site, unlike Wikipedia Review in the 2008-2011 era. It's been pretty obvious for a while that a lot of the links people were adding that led back to WO pages were being inserted in the hope that they'd recruit more readers and participants. Guess they've got their wish now. Risker (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =542607390

Yes, the way "WP-insiders" seriously dislikes WO, even to the point of praising old WR(!), intrigues me.

Sure, there was useful info on old WR, but nobody can seriously say that the "signal to noise"-level was better there, even in "the 2008-2011 era". You had to wade through an awful lot of muck to find the pearls.

But WR had an owner who actually wanted to be ...a Wikipedian.

While the main people behind WO (Does Greg still own the site?) ..are people who harbour no such ambitions.
And that, I fear, is WO´s big "crime".

[Midsize Jake]

Sure, there was useful info on old WR, but nobody can seriously say that the "signal to noise"-level was better there, even in "the 2008-2011 era". You had to wade through an awful lot of muck to find the pearls.

True, but I'd say the S/N ratio here is about the same, once you get past the fact that we allowed a handful of over-the-top crazy people to post on WR - many of whom, thankfully, aren't being allowed here at all. The result is a site that's more serious and more focused, but also (and perhaps paradoxically) a bit angrier in some respects... and above all, less forgiving of WP's many shortcomings, if only because those shortcomings aren't being used as comedy fodder to the same extent that they were on WR.

Still, I suspect the main reason for Ms. Risker's nostalgia is that during the 2008-2011 period in question, we made much more of an effort to respect their desire for anonymity than we had in the past - and, by most accounts, more than is being made on this site now. As Mr. Kohs mentioned above, they get freaked out over "outing" more than almost anything else, probably because they know anonymity is the fundamental underpinning of their success (such as it is). Without it, they'd wither pretty quickly, and that's always been true - at least in my opinion, anyway.

Lastly, I personally don't consider WR's owner's apparent desire to have her Wikipedia access rights restored as being all that much of a factor either way. After all, during that period of time I myself was far more visible as a lead figure on WR than she was, to the point where some people began to assume that I owned the site, not her - and I've never shown any desire to be a part of the Wikipedia "community" whatsoever. (At least I hope I haven't!)

[dogbiscuit]

I think Risker doth protest too much. She specifically highlights the "poor quality of the blogs" something that WO has actually got right in general, and it is interesting that the blog entry we were ambivalent about has actually been one of our most successful postings in that it triggered a massive allergic reaction within Wikipedia, bringing the diseased nature of its malfunctioning bureaucracy into full light.

We'd been playing the mature game before that, so we ended up with some well constructed blog entries, that simply did not inspire reaction, though we felt that they were getting the message out.

WR's blog died in the era that Risker gets nostalgic about.

Also, in terms of effectiveness, WR did have a couple of big wins on Wikipedia, the BLP policy change being the most notable. WO has had its big wins too, the whole episode of the dysfunctional WMUK was driven from here, and we probably helped bring WCA down too even if the WMF wanted it gone anyhow. Without the idiocy of its Chairman being exposed publicly, they would have had a harder battle. So WO has had big wins.

What do we learn? That Risker prefers a site that places drama above one that seeks to be more mature in its approach; that when we descend to drama we get a rapid response from Wikipedia, but also, when we take a more reasoned approach we are able to influence the outside world that little bit more. We created a haven for the thinking Wikipedians who could not in good conscience associate with the crazies that inhabited WR.

Mainly though, we learn that Risker doesn't have a clue about this site.

[EricBarbour]

What do we learn? That Risker prefers a site that places drama above one that seeks to be more mature in its approach; that when we descend to drama we get a rapid response from Wikipedia, but also, when we take a more reasoned approach we are able to influence the outside world that little bit more. We created a haven for the thinking Wikipedians who could not in good conscience associate with the crazies that inhabited WR.

Mainly though, we learn that Risker doesn't have a clue about this site.

Drama is what drives Wikipedia. The gnomes and drones write the "content", the content attracts eyeballs, traffic=money=power on the web.
Meanwhile, off in dark corners, idiot "leaders" like Madame Risker flop around and pretend to do "important work". They are ignored by most
of the gnomes and drones, but they are slowly killing the entire hive, by being stupid, incompetent, and addicted to pointless drama and warring.

Wikipedia is feudal, and this site is more focused on a goal than they are. The "encyclopedia" is not important, except as a honeypot for attention.

[lilburne]

I think Risker doth protest too much. She specifically highlights the "poor quality of the blogs" something that WO has actually got right in general, and it is interesting that the blog entry we were ambivalent about has actually been one of our most successful postings in that it triggered a massive allergic reaction within Wikipedia, bringing the diseased nature of its malfunctioning bureaucracy into full light.

We'd been playing the mature game before that, so we ended up with some well constructed blog entries, that simply did not inspire reaction, though we felt that they were getting the message out.

My view is that the blog posts are too detailed. We don't need to cross all the Ts, we have the evidence for anyone that wants to check the veracity of the statements and basically we only really need to say for eaxmple that Bibby has a bad reputation as an eBay seller, is a racist, misogynist, and porn purveyor who is given carte blanche to do his worst on the #1 internet information portal. Short and snappy with a willingness to provide detailed background links to media outlets.

The blog posts aren't an academic book, they should be illustrations of the fuckedness of wikipedia and its governance, expressed in simple terms that any one can understand within 5 minutes.

[thekohser]

My view is that the blog posts are too detailed. We don't need to cross all the Ts, we have the evidence for anyone that wants to check the veracity of the statements and basically we only really need to say...

Providing ample evidence removes much of the threat of any sort of libel claims or torts, which is an important reason to keep providing the details.

[Notvelty]

My view is that the blog posts are too detailed. We don't need to cross all the Ts, we have the evidence for anyone that wants to check the veracity of the statements and basically we only really need to say...

Providing ample evidence removes much of the threat of any sort of libel claims or torts, which is an important reason to keep providing the details.

Greg, as he always does when he isn't having his private fued with Jimbo (not that I can talk), has hit the nail right upon the head. We should ignore the push back from Wikipedia, because that's not what we're about. Wasn't this site created to expose wikipedia to the main stream; to document its proclivities in a comprehensive manner?

More detail! More data! We move above and beyond by being a source of real information for real people. Worrying about what wikipedians say or do in response is like letting the kkk (or scientologists) have any influence at all on the criticism of such.

I was lucky. I stumbled upon a coherant critique in WR when I found a local administrative child deciding sitting in judgement of commercial interests. But I am grateful that I did so; because I found the information I needed to have a complete picture.

Many are not so lucky. And the more we vaccillate; the more we pander to the needs of childish boy-men, the less real information we provide to real people seeking real answers to real questions.

Then again, paying mind to childish furries could also work. You never know.

[Cla68]

Please don't over-analyze what Risker is trying to say. She was one of the hopeful reformers, like SirFozzie and Cool Hand Luke, elected to ArbCom around the same time after participating for a couple of years in fighting for some of the same causes that WR was fighting for. If I remember right, Risker was one of Giano's active supporters when he was fighting with the early ArbCom. In this post and other comments by me and others in the last year or so, we have basically told her and the others that they wasted their time on ArbCom and really didn't accomplish anything. So, I think she's telling us that we haven't accomplished anything either other than to create a big roaring noise every now and then which quickly fades away. If I'm wrong, I hope she will post here and say so.

Of course, if she did post here, it wouldn't surprise me if she said, "Cla68 is incorrect, I really meant that I don't think your blog posts are that good. Nothing more."

Edit: By the way, I don't think their efforts were completely wasted. I think they did make progress on improving the protections given to WP's BLPs.

[HRIP7]

I think Risker doth protest too much. She specifically highlights the "poor quality of the blogs" something that WO has actually got right in general, and it is interesting that the blog entry we were ambivalent about has actually been one of our most successful postings in that it triggered a massive allergic reaction within Wikipedia, bringing the diseased nature of its malfunctioning bureaucracy into full light.

We'd been playing the mature game before that, so we ended up with some well constructed blog entries, that simply did not inspire reaction, though we felt that they were getting the message out.

WR's blog died in the era that Risker gets nostalgic about.

We should not measure success in terms of allergic reactions within Wikipedia. Wikipedia has battles and tensions every day, and the wider world cares not one jot, instead lapping up the PR message about how loving and thoughtful everyone at Wikipedia is.

Bringing the nature of Wikipedia's bureaucracy into light requires more than sparking a few discussion threads at RfAr, AN, or a user talk page. I am not saying the discussions have not been interesting and instructive—they have—only saying that the number of people who have actually read those discussions has been very small—just a few dozen insiders in the Wikipedia bubble.

[thekohser]

...only saying that the number of people who have actually read those discussions has been very small—just a few dozen insiders in the Wikipedia bubble.

My Examiner article has been viewed 357 times now, by what Google Analytics considers 296 "unique" visitors.

[dogbiscuit]

I think Risker doth protest too much. She specifically highlights the "poor quality of the blogs" something that WO has actually got right in general, and it is interesting that the blog entry we were ambivalent about has actually been one of our most successful postings in that it triggered a massive allergic reaction within Wikipedia, bringing the diseased nature of its malfunctioning bureaucracy into full light.

We'd been playing the mature game before that, so we ended up with some well constructed blog entries, that simply did not inspire reaction, though we felt that they were getting the message out.

WR's blog died in the era that Risker gets nostalgic about.

We should not measure success in terms of allergic reactions within Wikipedia. Wikipedia has battles and tensions every day, and the wider world cares not one jot, instead lapping up the PR message about how loving and thoughtful everyone at Wikipedia is.

Bringing the nature of Wikipedia's bureaucracy into light requires more than sparking a few discussion threads at RfAr, AN, or a user talk page. I am not saying the discussions have not been interesting and instructive—they have—only saying that the number of people who have actually read those discussions has been very small—just a few dozen insiders in the Wikipedia bubble.

I mainly agree, and what WO has been successful with that WR was not is a firmer, more respectful link with journalists. Not that that is directly down to WO, rather it is the ability of certain members, but it has provided a base from which to operate.

However, what WO also needs to do is allow those within Wikipedia to question how it is managed. This increases pressure on the system to reform or alternatively allows those who blindly assumed all was well to grasp that there is more afoot than they had perhaps realised.

Anyway, it has been instructive, and we now have documented one of the most obviously appalling failures of Wiki-bureaucracy yet seen, with Wikipedians still riding headlong over the cliff of stupidity that is Russavia.

[Hersch]

Hey, on that Signpost in the comments, Silver seren says:

Criticism is criticism. Actual constructive criticism of Wikipedia's purpose, its aims, how it goes about things, and individual incidents is fine. But Wikipediocracy doesn't go for that. All Wikipediocracy is about is the ad hominem, the insult. The purpose of it, or at least the purpose that it has ended up expressing, is to insult as many people on Wikipedia as possible, to dig up as much dirt (or what they think is dirt) as possible, and to then attack the editors they dislike as much as possible. That is Wikipediocracy in a nutshell. SilverserenC 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone should remind him (publicly) that on January 4, 2013, in response to a Wikipediocracy timeline, Silver seren left a comment on that blog post, saying:

I thought this was a really interesting timeline. I’m fully behind Andreas on this one.

So, we can confirm (and Marek should appreciate this), that Silver seren is a "contributor" to Wikipediocracy, and that he is "fully behind" some of our work here.

Not only that, but he referred to that individual as "Andreas" rather than "HRIP7" or "Jayen466."

[Poetlister]

While the main people behind WO (Does Greg still own the site?) ..are people who harbour no such ambitions.

I was under the impression that Greg is a fairly prolific editor there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[EricBarbour]

While the main people behind WO (Does Greg still own the site?) ..are people who harbour no such ambitions.

I was under the impression that Greg is a fairly prolific editor there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He is. He uses the same method many Wiki admins and article-controllers use--numerous sockpuppets, quietly editing, and not getting
into stupid arguments with others. It works, albeit in non-contentious areas that a few extremist cranks don't care about.

The secret is to not argue and not editwar. They have no defense against that.
Wikipedia's administration is based around warfare, not an "encyclopedia".

WR and WO are necessary adjuncts to the warfare, someone would have created them eventually anyway.
Remember, Wikipedia twits tried to create critical websites (notably WikiTruth and WikBack), all of which failed massively, because they
were run by the same argumentative trolls who run Wikipedia. WikBack was a forum like WR or WO, but was heavily censored and paranoiac in
the typical Wikipedia style. It only lasted a few months before the arbitrator who started it pulled it down. People would post valid criticisms of
Wikipedia and its inner circle, and he would frantically delete all of it. (If you are looking for someone to blame for Arbcom's paranoid and
incompetent operations, he gets some of the blame.)

[Hex]

WikBack was a forum like WR or WO, but was heavily censored and paranoiac in
the typical Wikipedia style. It only lasted a few months before the arbitrator who started it pulled it down.

Fascinating. I never heard about that. The Web Archive has it.