Page 1 of 1

What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:02 am
by deci
Hello new here but before I get involved I want to know and be assured this place's principles are in alignment with mine and that it will not waste my time the way Wikipedia has.

According to the site's mission statement:
We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with the structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world's most frequently visited websites, the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

All are welcome to participate here. Be advised, however, that this site is strictly moderated; Posts which are off-topic or otherwise annoying will be moved or deleted at the discretion of our august team of moderators, all veterans of the Wikipedia Review during its better days.
So is this place anti-Wikipedia in ethos and wouldn't care if Wikipedia crashed tomorrow never to be heard from again or does it seek to improve Wikipedia?

What kind of moderation is implemented here? What kind of moderation does it aspire to? Is naming names frowned upon? One of the problems with Wikipedia is the **** it pulls with "assume good faith" and politeness perverting those concepts. Is this place serious or does it adopt the levity of Wikipedia? Off-topic digressions dilute effectiveness. From what I've seen some of the better content here is undermined by the scandal rag tone.

There is mention of Wikipedia Review in the mission statement. Not everyone knows what that is or what happened there.

Who are the people behind this site? I see some names from Wikipedia. Why have they chosen to associate themselves with this site? What are their stories? Why should I trust them not to be secretly feeding privileged information here to the folks there? I see some people who profess no connection to Wikipedia. Then why are they moderators and involved on this site?

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:22 am
by Zoloft
The purpose of Wikipediocracy is to constructively criticise Wikipedia's flaws, the failing of its governance, and to provide a safe place to discuss all this.

The admins and mods here try protect members from constantly attacking each other, or forever bashing this site itself, as disrepectful and off-message. We have an admin policy of not giving your IP address or email to anyone. The only exception is if a member attacks the site, uses it only to attack others, or maliciously uses multiple accounts. Such events are few and handled quietly not to shame the member.

Members here do not speak in one voice, and hold opposing and varied views about Wikipedia, the WMF, and Jimmy Wales. Discussion is often spirited and not always on point, so we have a sub-forum for those topics, and posts are often split off if not germane or humane.

We don't have a lot of formal policies-that keeps the workload down and prevents them being gamed.

All sorts of people join here.

We don't enforce Wikipedia's rules.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:24 am
by TungstenCarbide
deci wrote:Hello new here but before I get involved I want to know and be assured this place's principles are in alignment with mine and that it will not waste my time the way Wikipedia has ... So is this place anti-Wikipedia in ethos and wouldn't care if Wikipedia crashed tomorrow never to be heard from again or does it seek to improve Wikipedia?
Members of this site range from Wikipedia arbitrators, administrators, check users and editors in good standing, to people banned from Wikipedia, to people who want to hasten the day Wikipedia falls.

Unlike Wikipedia, people here are free to speak their honest mind. There is less censorship. Moderating of posts is rare but happens, for example if you make a joking reference to violence.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:31 am
by Zoloft
This place can be a big time sink, but we're not as hypocritical as the Big Wiki.

There are tussles and arguments about the Wiki Way, but honest ones.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:14 am
by deci
Zoloft wrote:The purpose of Wikipediocracy is to constructively criticise Wikipedia's flaws, the failing of its governance, and to provide a safe place to discuss all this.
"Constructively criticize Wikipedia's flaws"? With a view to what? Improving Wikipedia and making it better? So people here aim to give more of their time, ideas, and effort to support and improve Jimmy Wales' flagship project so he can continue to solicit donations on their work and spend other people's money?

I get the feeling too many people with legitimate grievances are too reserved in their criticism of Wikipedia and are still clinging to the idealistic fairy tale of a respectable free and open source of information that Wikipedia promises. This pulling of punches makes a mockery of the injury that Wikipedia causes.

If I was to bluntly criticize certain people here for trying to improve Wikipedia would that be okay? If I was to make the observation that the criticism usually leveled at Wikipedia is fluff and that the more serious criticisms of Wikipedia are generally glossed over how would people feel about it?

Wikipedia is full of hypocrites. Since many people here come from there, unfortunately I'm working on the assumption there are probably hypocrites here as well although I'm willing to be surprised. So I want to get a feel of how seriously this site takes its avowed mission of allowing criticism of Wikipedia and the people there (and maybe here).

By the way I'm still curious what happened at Wikipedia Review.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:33 am
by Randy from Boise
deci wrote:
So is this place anti-Wikipedia in ethos and wouldn't care if Wikipedia crashed tomorrow never to be heard from again or does it seek to improve Wikipedia?

What kind of moderation is implemented here? What kind of moderation does it aspire to? Is naming names frowned upon?
Ah, the "reform or revolution" question is unsolved here. Active participants on the message board are a mixture of critical supporters of WP and active opponents of WP and there is a bit of tension that arises over that. The mainpage essays are dominated by the active opponents, I think that's fair to say.

Naming names? Yeah, same deal. The opponents are more inclined to do this, the critical supporters less inclined. Moderation is either just fine or insufficient, depending on which camp one is in — but in general there is more intelligent exchange of ideas here than there was at Wikipedia Review, which had a much more "troll-lee" feel.

RfB

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:46 am
by Ghost In The Machine
deci wrote:If I was to bluntly criticize certain people here for trying to improve Wikipedia would that be okay? If I was to make the observation that the criticism usually leveled at Wikipedia is fluff and that the more serious criticisms of Wikipedia are generally glossed over how would people feel about it?
I, for one, would greatly enjoy reading such...Rock on!
And BTW, Welcome!

Does anyone who was actually there when it happened, care to enlighten our new friend as to what happened over at ye olde Review?

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:03 am
by Cla68
Ghost In The Machine wrote:
deci wrote:If I was to bluntly criticize certain people here for trying to improve Wikipedia would that be okay? If I was to make the observation that the criticism usually leveled at Wikipedia is fluff and that the more serious criticisms of Wikipedia are generally glossed over how would people feel about it?
I, for one, would greatly enjoy reading such...Rock on!
And BTW, Welcome!

Does anyone who was actually there when it happened, care to enlighten our new friend as to what happened over at ye olde Review?
There were creative and irreconcilable differences between most of the regulars and WR's site owner. So, most of the regulars split and started this site.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:52 am
by Midsize Jake
Ghost In The Machine wrote:Does anyone who was actually there when it happened, care to enlighten our new friend as to what happened over at ye olde Review?
Well, among other things, I had a bit of a brain fart!
"Constructively criticize Wikipedia's flaws"? With a view to what? Improving Wikipedia and making it better?
Not necessarily. The word "constructively" might also suggest a desire to help in the formation of Wikipedia's eventual replacement, which many of us hope will be set up and managed properly, i.e., not allowing the inmates to run the asylum. Admittedly though, at this point a major paradigm shift will probably be required to actually replace Wikipedia, but we can dream...

There are also those of us who enjoy destructive criticism, like myself for example. Though I try not to be quite as self-indulgent here as I was at the other place, where I was the #1 poster. (Technically, I still am!)

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:25 am
by Ghost In The Machine
Midsize Jake wrote:
Ghost In The Machine wrote:Does anyone who was actually there when it happened, care to enlighten our new friend as to what happened over at ye olde Review?
Well, among other things, I had a bit of a brain fart!
Dealing with the unstable and unwell can cause that.
I'm sure the new cyberpope will absolve thee.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:32 am
by lilburne
deci wrote:
Zoloft wrote:The purpose of Wikipediocracy is to constructively criticise Wikipedia's flaws, the failing of its governance, and to provide a safe place to discuss all this.
"Constructively criticize Wikipedia's flaws"? With a view to what? Improving Wikipedia and making it better? So people here aim to give more of their time, ideas, and effort to support and improve Jimmy Wales' flagship project so he can continue to solicit donations on their work and spend other people's money?
Wikipedia has NO editorial control, it has NO behavioural controls. It has an community of people that are imbued with a rationale that was infected with the philosophy espoused by a science fiction character, which is frankly bizarre. As it is there is no vehicle for 'improving' it. David Bowie wrote a song which I think sums out this out of control monster:
And the road is coming to its end
Now the damned have no time to make amends
No purse of token fortune stands in our way
The silent guns of love
Will blast the sky
We broke the ruptured structure built of age
Our weapons were the tongues of crying rage

Where money stood
We planted seeds of rebirth
And stabbed the backs of fathers
Sons of dirt

Infiltrated business cesspools
Hating through our sleeves
Yea, and we slit the Catholic throat
Stoned the poor
On slogans such as

'Wish You Could Hear'
'Love Is All We Need'
'Kick Out The Jams'
'Kick Out Your Mother'
'Cut Up Your Friend'
'Screw Up Your Brother or He'll Get You In the End'

And we know the flag of love is from above
And we can force you to be free
And we can force you to believe"

It has indeed become a machine, it trundles along, crushing everything in its path, its subjects and its editors included, all to the collective will. The problem is that there is no collective will, there are a handful of the empowered with time on their hands. A politburo if you will, and a chorus of the faithful. And it is fickle as Fae, Russavia, WillBeBack and others have discovered. One minute you are in the next you are out.

Is there any hope for it. Probably not unless some effective control is imposed, but by whom? For those employed by the WMF it is a nice little earner, even if placed on life support it will provide an income for them for as long as they want.

The only danger is if that trundling machine gets steered over a cliff in such a way that it affects their donation stream.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:22 am
by Poetlister
deci wrote:Why should I trust them not to be secretly feeding privileged information here to the folks there?
I suppose you can never guarantee that won't happen, especially as some of the moderators here seem to be Wikipedia admins.

Actually, one of the amusing things about this place is how it has its own cabal, to some extent replicating what goes on over there. But that is only to be expected; so many people here are Wikipedia types, even those banned from there, so of course they have the same mind set. I, as an outsider, am of course in neither cabal.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:34 pm
by thekohser
Randy from Boise wrote:The mainpage essays are dominated by the active opponents, I think that's fair to say.
How many mainpage essays (we call these "blog posts") have the reformer-critics written and submitted for publication? Please don't make it sound like there's a house policy to keep the blog as strident as we can.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:34 pm
by Zoloft
After Sue Gardner leaves the WMF, she's welcome to submit a blog post. Our blog gets ten times the hits hers does.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:54 pm
by Jaranda
deci wrote:
Zoloft wrote:The purpose of Wikipediocracy is to constructively criticise Wikipedia's flaws, the failing of its governance, and to provide a safe place to discuss all this.
"Constructively criticize Wikipedia's flaws"? With a view to what? Improving Wikipedia and making it better? So people here aim to give more of their time, ideas, and effort to support and improve Jimmy Wales' flagship project so he can continue to solicit donations on their work and spend other people's money?

I get the feeling too many people with legitimate grievances are too reserved in their criticism of Wikipedia and are still clinging to the idealistic fairy tale of a respectable free and open source of information that Wikipedia promises. This pulling of punches makes a mockery of the injury that Wikipedia causes.

If I was to bluntly criticize certain people here for trying to improve Wikipedia would that be okay? If I was to make the observation that the criticism usually leveled at Wikipedia is fluff and that the more serious criticisms of Wikipedia are generally glossed over how would people feel about it?

Wikipedia is full of hypocrites. Since many people here come from there, unfortunately I'm working on the assumption there are probably hypocrites here as well although I'm willing to be surprised. So I want to get a feel of how seriously this site takes its avowed mission of allowing criticism of Wikipedia and the people there (and maybe here).

By the way I'm still curious what happened at Wikipedia Review.
This website is the only criticism website that much more in point and blunt then anything you say on Wikipedia. In my nine years in the project I've seen all kinds of hypothetical shit going on in the project. You will notice each editor active here has their own point of view, but they all agree that Wikipedia has major flaws. Also the criticism here is seen by every person who are involved in those "wikipolitics". While there is a few things here I can't agree on, I know you will come to like and trust this place.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:51 am
by Cedric
deci wrote:If I was to bluntly criticize certain people here for trying to improve Wikipedia would that be okay? If I was to make the observation that the criticism usually leveled at Wikipedia is fluff and that the more serious criticisms of Wikipedia are generally glossed over how would people feel about it?
I would be quite satisfied with that. I came to the conclusion that there was no realistic hope of meaningful reform on Wikipedia by the spring of 2007, not long after I left Wikipedia and joined Wikipedia Review. If memory serves, I was the first to use the "Hasten The Day!" label to represent the point of view that WP's process of self-destruction should be abetted where possible, rather than delayed by reforms that have no hope of sticking anyway. It still seems to me that several here do not really understand what is meant by "Hasten The Day!", or choose to misrepresent it. Outside of some minor irritation over that, it really matters not to me. I am more convinced than ever that nothing can save WP now. The only question is how long its continuing decline and ultimate fall will take.
deci wrote:By the way I'm still curious what happened at Wikipedia Review.
Long story short, the never very stable and usually absent owner of the WR domain belatedly took a prolonged and unhelpful hand in moderating WR, overturning major decisions and alienating all of the other mod staff. Several of those mods (including myself) and other prominent WR members acted in concert to set up this site as an alternative. Most of the WR membership migrated here, leaving WR as a shell of its former self.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:08 am
by EricBarbour
Cedric wrote:I am more convinced than ever that nothing can save WP now. The only question is how long its continuing decline and ultimate fall will take.
I am in full agreement. However, there are some people on this forum who refuse to even entertain that thought, despite being
blocked or harassed in one way or another. Some of them have had good content deleted, because they were "baaaanned persons".

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:05 pm
by Ceoil
I think your projecting to an extent there Eric, there are quite a few that still think it can be saved, despite the quality and motivation of the self-prepuating guys at the top of the admin chain.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:53 pm
by deci
From this thread
Vigilant wrote:OK,

Several others here have tried to be diplomatic.
That's not me.

Shut the fuck up with these weird, strident conspiracy thingies you're doing.
It's tiresome and feeble and makes you look like a high school student with too little real world experience.

State the problem in a straight forward manner and stop thinking that you have some magical insight into wikipedia and that if you shared it with the wider world that someone at wikipedia would read it and fix all their problems overnight.

This makes you look like a self important douchebag.

You wouldn't happen to have won a 12th place award for Extemporaneous Writing, would you have?
Zoloft wrote:
deci wrote:Excuse me but I find this tone unwarranted. I am criticizing Wikipedia perhaps flippantly perhaps seriously. Are you saying that is not allowed on this site? Is Wikipedia a holy cow? Would you be taking the same tone if I said the government was incompetent? If this all strikes too close to home and is not allowed then I do wonder what this forum is for.
Ok, deci, you are allowed to criticize Wikipedia. The problem is you're acting a bit hyper and telling people here who have been critical of Wikipedia for a long time that if they disagree with you they're pro-Wikipedia.

If you're not trolling, tone it down a bit. If you are trolling, well, eventually you'll get suspended from here, sometime between now and tomorrow.
Thank you for making the gist of the warning you sent me via BBS message public. Honestly I'm a bit baffled. I was perhaps a little flippant and yes critical of Wikipedia and yes the reasons other members here continue to support Wikipedia but then in my defense I was taking your mission statement at face value. My conduct has been nowhere near the evisceration that Vigilant displays in the above. But if all it takes to get warned is for a couple of others to get huffy then this place is too sensitive for the likes of me. I guess I got my answer to the question of this thread. I suggest this place drop the pretense of being that critical of Wikipedia if you don't want others such as myself strolling through.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:02 pm
by mac
deci wrote:<snip>
I was perhaps a little flippant and yes critical of Wikipedia and yes the reasons other members here continue to support Wikipedia but then in my defense I was taking your mission statement at face value. My conduct has been nowhere near the evisceration that Vigilant displays in the above. But if all it takes to get warned is for a couple of others to get huffy then this place is too sensitive for the likes of me. I guess I got my answer to the question of this thread. I suggest this place drop the pretense of being that critical of Wikipedia if you don't want others such as myself strolling through.

Image


Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:12 pm
by deci
I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:30 pm
by Zoloft
deci wrote:I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!
You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
You're a troll.
Suspended.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:01 am
by SB_Johnny
Zoloft wrote:You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
Chihuahua suits are cheaper than fox or wolf suits. Less material, you see. :banana: :hamsterwheel:

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:36 am
by Vigilant
SB_Johnny wrote:
Zoloft wrote:You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
Chihuahua suits are cheaper than fox or wolf suits. Less material, you see. :banana: :hamsterwheel:
Takes more chihuahua's to make a full suit.
Hard to get the little ears to lay down when you sew the hides together.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:46 am
by Hersch
deci wrote: I suggest this place drop the pretense of being that critical of Wikipedia if you don't want others such as myself strolling through.
A bit of extra sibilance there. :B'

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:05 am
by Zoloft

Number of days without
a trolling member:
1

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:23 am
by greyed.out.fields
Zoloft wrote:
deci wrote:I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!
You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
You're a troll.
Suspended.
I venture to suggest that "deci" probably expressed a similar sentiment when he or she got "indeffed" from Wikipedia. And quite probably in any number of other situations where his or her attention-seeking behavior did not result in the kind of attention he or she desired.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:18 am
by Vocal
Zoloft wrote:
deci wrote:I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!
You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
You're a troll.
Suspended.
Whatever happened to the lovely yellow colour?

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:22 pm
by Zoloft
Vocal wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
deci wrote:I'm disappointed that my initial suspicions were accurate but since it did fall within the realm of anticipated scenarios not that much. But if it makes you feel better to think that I'm sobbing inconsolably and tearing my hair out in vexation I'll leave you with that lovely picture. Bye!
You've been yipping like a chihuahua and nipping at other member's ankles for a whole day.
You're a troll.
Suspended.
Whatever happened to the lovely yellow colour?
We went for 'subtle.'
:axemurderer:

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:17 pm
by Vocal
I feel like there's a difference between 'subtle' and 'leaving people wondering what happened', but OK.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:31 pm
by Poetlister
Vocal wrote:I feel like there's a difference between 'subtle' and 'leaving people wondering what happened', but OK.
Isn't that ratrher like the scarlet letter on Wikipedia user pages that people object to?

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:55 pm
by thekohser
deci wrote:I suggest this place drop the pretense of being that critical of Wikipedia if you don't want others such as myself strolling through.
I suggest that you drop the act of showing up here from out of the blue, not identifying who you are, but wasting no time repeatedly telling this site's management how the site should be run.

Re: What is Wikipediocracy?

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:47 pm
by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
thekohser wrote:
deci wrote:I suggest this place drop the pretense of being that critical of Wikipedia if you don't want others such as myself strolling through.
I suggest that you drop the act of showing up here from out of the blue, not identifying who you are, but wasting no time repeatedly telling this site's management how the site should be run.
Seconded.

Deci's Herostratus-level trolling motivated me to use the foes feature.