Creative Vandalism

[thekohser]

Does anyone think that I should continue with my reversal of the vandalized articles, or just let them fester, since they decided to block me? If unblocked, I would agree to not modify the Talk pages of articles and simply correct the articles themselves.

Also...

Editing from 76.76.164.88 has been blocked (disabled) by Courcelles for the following reason(s):
Block evasion
This block has been set to expire: 16:36, 3 April 2015.

[Poetlister]

Hurrah for Fluffernutter.

There's not much there to say "hurrah" about. She reverted the idiot that reinserted Kohser's experimental vandalism after he came back to repair it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting the emoticon.

Greg, no, leave it be.

[eppur si muove]

Does anyone think that I should continue with my reversal of the vandalized articles, or just let them fester, since they decided to block me? If unblocked, I would agree to not modify the Talk pages of articles and simply correct the articles themselves.

Also...

Editing from 76.76.164.88 has been blocked (disabled) by Courcelles for the following reason(s):
Block evasion
This block has been set to expire: 16:36, 3 April 2015.

Send a message to Arbcom making clear which option you will take if they don't reply. They can then decide whether the recent Arbcom blocks were just for show and they are really giving you a nod and a wink to go ahead and fix it, or if instead they are telling you that they want you to leave erroneous information unchanged. Also, if you do not intend to make the changes you made as part of this research evident in the article you publish, then make that clear. We don't want them to get away with saying that they only said not to make fixes because they thought that people could do so within a month anyway but you changed the game and kept the data secret. Any decision to leave that wart on Wikipedia's nose to spite you, the face who contributes a lot of their business content, should be made explicit.

[thekohser]

I will not keep the data secret, even if ArbCom and other Wikipediots are spiteful little children. The falsified information will all be made available in a detailed, notated spreadsheet kept online for public viewing. I honestly believe this is an important (quasi-)scientific record of how Wikipedia reacts to damage. The only harm in their thwarting my attempt to revert the damage is that the damage will inevitably persist for longer than it would have if they had just let me go about my business.

The added benefit of the experiment has been the demonstrated "fingers in ears, I can't hear you" effect.

[Peter Damian]

Spelling this out.

The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation.

What other kinds of revelation are there? (Revelation: “a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.” )

[Peter Damian]

I will not keep the data secret, even if ArbCom and other Wikipediots are spiteful little children. The falsified information will all be made available in a detailed, notated spreadsheet kept online for public viewing. I honestly believe this is an important (quasi-)scientific record of how Wikipedia reacts to damage. The only harm in their thwarting my attempt to revert the damage is that the damage will inevitably persist for longer than it would have if they had just let me go about my business.

Support.

Does anyone think that I should continue with my reversal of the vandalized articles, or just let them fester, since they decided to block me? If unblocked, I would agree to not modify the Talk pages of articles and simply correct the articles themselves.

Let them fester, given what happened.

[DanMurphy]

Spelling this out.

The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation.

What other kinds of revelation are there? (Revelation: “a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.” )

Ira implies that this is so well-known the he should have no objection to a template at the top of all their articles that says: "Wikipedia articles are open to manipulation by editors who are ignorant, malicious, or have strong conflicts of interest. Rely on the claims contained in them at your own risk."

Right?

[Peter Damian]

Spelling this out.

The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation.

What other kinds of revelation are there? (Revelation: “a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.” )

Ira implies that this is so well-known the he should have no objection to a template at the top of all their articles that says: "Wikipedia articles are open to manipulation by editors who are ignorant, malicious, or have strong conflicts of interest. Rely on the claims contained in them at your own risk."

Right?

Right.

[DanMurphy]

Spelling this out.

The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation.

What other kinds of revelation are there? (Revelation: “a surprising and previously unknown fact that has been disclosed to others.” )

Ira implies that this is so well-known the he should have no objection to a template at the top of all their articles that says: "Wikipedia articles are open to manipulation by editors who are ignorant, malicious, or have strong conflicts of interest. Rely on the claims contained in them at your own risk."

Right?

Right.

Downright unethical not to have such prominent warnings. Right, Ira?

[HRIP7]

And Jesus, Ira, are you one fatuous ass.

None of this, of course, means that I or anyone else find Thekohser's behavior acceptable. The fact that the wiki open editing model is vulnerable to bad-faith abuse of this kind is, unfortunately, not a novel revelation. Conducting another "experiment" aimed at demonstrating it was neither necessary, nor authorized, nor ethically permissible. Significantly, the Arbitration Committee has also condemned a previous "breaching experiment" in which Thekohser deliberately vandalized BLPs (see, here). Thekohser also previously obtained unauthorized access to an administrator account, requiring an emergency desysopping (see here). If, as appears, the mechanisms available to the editing community are unable to control this individual's gross misconduct, it may be appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation Office to review the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think NYB overreached a little here.

I just rediscovered this YouTube video by ARD (broadcaster) (T-H-L) (Germany's public-service broadcaster, equivalent to the BBC), which performed a somewhat similar breaching experiment last year. (Mancunium posted a link here on the forum at the time.)
The video is in German. To give you a brief summary, they first tried to make some very unsubtle changes to the Wikipedia article on their own programme. Those were not approved (remember: the German Wikipedia has pending changes throughout).

The presenter then pretended to be a PR manager for a minor German band, and contacted various PR agencies with a request to have criticism deleted, and have the band bigged up a bit: they wanted the band's Wikipedia article to say that the band had "established itself in the international electro pop scene".

They contacted various PR companies, which all turned them down at first. However, they were then (miraculously!) contacted by someone else they hadn't called, who offered to do the changes. He advised them that they would need a source. He offered to get a source written for what they wanted the article to say. The source duly appeared, the changes (including deletion of criticism) were made, and – perhaps inadvertently – approved a few days later by a gnoming admin who deleted some white space.

It's a good little programme, and very educational.

I mention this because to my mind, this recent example of a public-service broadcaster performing a breaching experiment of this type indicates that Newyorkbrad's assessment of the ethical permissibility or superfluity of such experiments is not shared by the public at large. The programme makers considered it in the public interest, and I think they were right.

[Vigilant]

And now at RFAR...

Sigh

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

Good lord! The idiocy! I think I have to go wash my eyes out now.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Banning_Policy_II (T-H-L)

It looks like most of the Arbs have made up their minds already. Despite their many, many flaws, at least they can all agree that Hell in a Bucket is dumber than a sack of potatoes.

Hellinabucket says,

"HI MY NAME IS JAKE.

...
I AM MOST DEFINITLY 420 FRIENDLY AND A BIG DEAD HEAD TO BOOT."

What 20 Years Of Research Has Taught Us About The Chronic Effects Of Marijuana

Chronic Effects

Marijuana use is linked to adverse cognitive effects. In particular, the drug is linked to reduced learning, memory, and attention. It hasn’t been entirely clear whether these effects persist after a person stops using the drug, but there’s some evidence that it does. One study found a reduction in IQ of 8 points in long-time users, the greatest decline being in people who’d started using as teenagers and continued daily into adulthood. For people who began in adulthood and eventually stopped using, a reduction in IQ was not seen a year later.
Marijuana may change brain structure and function. There’s been an ongoing debate about whether marijuana actually changes the brain, but recent evidence has suggested that it is linked to changes in the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex. It’s unclear, however, how long these effects last, whether they’re linked to behavioral changes, and whether they reverse after a person stops using the drug.
Regular use is linked to an increased risk of psychotic symptoms. That marijuana is linked to increased psychotic symptoms (e.g., delusions, hallucinations, disordered thinking) is fairly clear. But again, it’s been a chicken-and-egg problem, since it’s hard to show whether causation is at play, and which way the connection goes. However, it’s likely that the relationship actually goes both ways: Marijuana may lead to psychotic symptoms, and early psychotic symptoms may increase the likelihood that a person will smoke marijuana (particularly if there’s a family history of psychotic disorders).
Marijuana is linked to lower educational attainment. When pot smoking begins in adolescence, people tend to go less far in school – but again, a causal relationship hasn’t been demonstrated.

His parents must be soooo proud.

[Triptych]

Courcelles labeled the block "Oversight block." What was oversightable about what Kohser did? Or have we reached the stage where insiders say "oversight schmoversight, I'm erasing this."

Nothing, and they reached that stage back in 2006.....

It's just so brazen. Courcelles doesn't want his block overturned, so he types "Oversight" though there's nothing oversighted or oversightable. "It is used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations" says the Oversight page. If anyone wants to take the time to report him (say for abusing his Oversight administrator status by mislabeling the block), you can email oversight-en-wp AT wikipedia.org.

On the talkpage however, he changes it up: he says it's a block not to be overturned unless by Arbcom. So, the return of the legendary "Arbcom block." Unlike an Oversight block, which a stock administrator can't examine because the grounds have been oversighted, and unlike a Checkuser block, which a stock administrator can't examine because there's non-publicly viewable technical evidence, an "Arbcom block" is authority-only. It confers a superior status on the block merely because it was an arb that placed it. So Courcelles is just inflating his ego.

It was of course a stupid block too because now the other 22 or whatever vandalisms will remain in place, presumably until Kohser publishes his report detailing them. And if he's going to do that as professionally as he seems to want to, that could be quite a while.

[Anthonyhcole]

Ira implies that this is so well-known the he should have no objection to a template at the top of all their articles that says: "Wikipedia articles are open to manipulation by editors who are ignorant, malicious, or have strong conflicts of interest. Rely on the claims contained in them at your own risk."

Right?

Right.

Downright unethical not to have such prominent warnings. Right, Ira?

Right. ...or words to that effect. Jimmy believes our articles should have a more prominent disclaimer. We had a lengthy discussion about improving the prominence of the disclaimer and spelling it out more clearly on our medical articles but, sadly, the loving and thoughtful community didn't approve. This is something the board should be forcing onto all Wikipedias. I don't think they have the necessary spine, ethics or vision, sadly. SandyGeorgia thought they'd actively oppose it.

Thanks for bringing this up, Dan. I've proposed taking another run at the medical disclaimer, based on Scott's earlier proposal. (linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... r#Proposal[/link])

[Anthonyhcole]

Regarding disclaimers, this, or a version of it, was on top of Cancer pain (T-H-L) for a few weeks in 2013-4:

Anyone can edit this article. Do not rely on it for medical advice.
Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources.

I commend to you that above linked talk page. In my opinion, Sandy Georgia is the world's best Wikipedian, by a mile. And watching her, Scott, Alanist and the others work together like that was an inspiration to me. I think I sank that effort with my zealotry.

The readers who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works (that is, the "anyone can edit" nature) and who may be misled by our medical content are not aware of and do not care if an article has changed or not-- they think it was written by an expert and is vetted. Those of us who are aware and follow recent changes can never keep up. We have multiple FAs and GAs that have not been fixed for years. There are more errors and problems out there than 50 editors just like Doc James, me, everyone else could fix in a year-- that is the problem we need to address, and plugging away at trying to fix all of 'em is worse than putting a finger in the dike to hold back the sea.

And this precursor discussion at MastCell's talk page is worth a read, too. MastCell's always worth reading, IMO.

[DanMurphy]

Regarding disclaimers, this, or a version of it, was on top of Cancer pain (T-H-L) for a few weeks in 2013-4:

Anyone can edit this article. Do not rely on it for medical advice.
Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources.

I commend to you that above linked talk page. In my opinion, Sandy Georgia is the world's best Wikipedian, by a mile. And watching her, Scott, Alanist and the others work together like that was an inspiration to me. I think I sank that effort with my zealotry.

The readers who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works (that is, the "anyone can edit" nature) and who may be misled by our medical content are not aware of and do not care if an article has changed or not-- they think it was written by an expert and is vetted. Those of us who are aware and follow recent changes can never keep up. We have multiple FAs and GAs that have not been fixed for years. There are more errors and problems out there than 50 editors just like Doc James, me, everyone else could fix in a year-- that is the problem we need to address, and plugging away at trying to fix all of 'em is worse than putting a finger in the dike to hold back the sea.

Removed by one David E. Siegel (AKA DESiegel (T-C-L)) who says he is a "professional APL programmer."

Mr. Siegel cited a Wikipedia content guideline called No disclaimers in articles for this removal.

This page in a nutshell: Disclaimers should not be used in articles. All articles are already covered by a general disclaimer.

The doctor is in, and he knows what's best for you.

[Anthonyhcole]

Removed by one David E. Siegel (AKA DESiegel (T-C-L)) who says he is a "professional APL programmer."

Mr. Siegel cited a Wikipedia content guideline called No disclaimers in articles for this removal.

Geni (T-C-L) tried earlier, but lost the edit war.

[Hex]

Thanks for bringing this up, Dan. I've proposed taking another run at the medical disclaimer, based on Scott's earlier proposal. (linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... r#Proposal[/link])

Cool. Best of luck.

[Triptych]

It's just so brazen. Courcelles doesn't want his block overturned, so he types "Oversight" though there's nothing oversighted or oversightable. "It is used within strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations" says the Oversight page.

Excuse me, when I typed the above I had overlooked Kohser's comment, here:

As for the "oversight" aspect of one of my article Talk page notes about a vandalism, it boils down to ArbCom not wanting the general public to know (gasp!) that on Chenango Canal (T-H-L), shortly after my vandalism, an editor (Hlkliman (T-C-L)) made several edits to the article without noticing the vandalism. Presumably this was Harvey L. Kliman, webmaster of the Chenango Canal Association website. That's OUTING! The article was ultimately corrected by Wade lallier (T-C-L), and the ArbCom thinks it's greatly disruptive to speculate that Wade Lallier is a New York state corrections officer.

The editors in question (both newish, perhaps to answer the vandalism) appear to use their own names as usernames, however they don't identify further than that at their userpages. So if Kohser websearched them and then typed that other information in his summary at the article, that would indeed classify as a protection of privacy as laid out on the Oversight information page. So then Courcelles correctly oversights, and then I guess could either warn or block "Saint Kohser" to stop him from doing such things again with his other vandalism reversals, and he picked "block" Apologies to Courcelles then for saying he abused his Oversight status. It didn't look to me like Kohser was doing anything oversightable in those restorations, and I think he actually wasn't with the rest of them, however I should have looked closer.

[Anthonyhcole]

Thanks for bringing this up, Dan. I've proposed taking another run at the medical disclaimer, based on Scott's earlier proposal. (linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... r#Proposal[/link])

Cool. Best of luck.

You're not jumping in to argue the case again, then?

[thekohser]

Could a mod kindly move the APL stuff somewhere, as it's

[EricBarbour]

Sandy Georgia is the world's best Wikipedian, by a mile.

Also one of the craziest. Funny how that works.

And yes, I'm moving the APL stuff to Off-Topic.

[Anthonyhcole]

Greg, do you have access to a list of unwatched Wikipedia articles? Someone on Jimmy's talk page suggested you do/might?

[thekohser]

Greg, do you have access to a list of unwatched Wikipedia articles? Someone on Jimmy's talk page suggested you do/might?

MZMcBride crafted a widget (I recall January 2010) that could find unwatched, unsourced BLPs. I believed that to be a sad state of affairs on Wikipedia -- that BLPs might be constructed about people, but with no sourcing and nobody keeping an eye out -- so I proposed an experiment to add non-damaging misinformation to these BLPs, to see if anyone would revert the damage within a set period of time, such as 2 weeks. If I recall, I think Alison Cassidy was going to watch my deliberate damage, to make sure that none of it would grossly harm the reputations of the subjects of the BLPs.

If I recall, Newyorkbrad had a bit of a hissy fit about this, and he demanded from MZMcBride a copy of the list of unwatched, unsourced BLPs. I communicated the following to both MZ and NYB:

My thoughts are that if ArbCom wishes to foul a legitimate experiment,
they should actively state that they wish to foul the experiment, and
then you can release whatever you want to them.

If, instead, they are interested in learning how badly Wikipedia
performs in terms of upholding the values of scholarship and human
dignity when it comes to unwatched, unsourced BLPs, then they should
actively state that they wish to support my efforts to learn more
about this phenomenon, provide an assurance of amnesty to my activity
in this matter (i.e., won't block IP addresses, etc.), and then I will
happily release the list to them myself.

It would seem to me that if the ArbCom has the larger list, and we
have evidence that someone went and watchlisted all the previously
unwatched biographies, shouldn't the edits to the shorter list have
been "detected" by now? Or, is this just a matter of the ArbCom being
too lazy to actually look through what must be a few dozen edits over
the past 15 days, and they'd rather prefer to beat it out of us?

Brad, what exactly is going on with this persistent drive to coerce
wider disclosure of the short list, when the larger list was already
provided to ArbCom? Or, did McBride excerpt and hide the short list
from the large list?

Anyway... I have a sneaking suspicion that one fairly new editor seems
to be "on the scent" of this experiment. Do you have any information,
Brad, about such a user who "invented" themselves about 4 days ago to
work on nothing but BLP articles? Hmm?

Regards,

Greg

Matetsky was either too cowardly or too busy to reply.

[Anthonyhcole]

Thanks. If you still have access to a list of unwatched articles, did you choose your 30 test articles in the current experiment from that list? Obviously, the answer to this will affect the interpretation of the results.

[eppur si muove]

I suspect not as some were fiddled with by their most common editors and others were picked to have a fair amount of traffic.

[thekohser]

Thanks. If you still have access to a list of unwatched articles, did you choose your 30 test articles in the current experiment from that list? Obviously, the answer to this will affect the interpretation of the results.

It sounds like you might benefit from reading (or re-reading) all of my posts in this thread, starting back on February 11, 2015 (near the bottom of "page 2" of the thread).

[Anthonyhcole]

Thanks. If you still have access to a list of unwatched articles, did you choose your 30 test articles in the current experiment from that list? Obviously, the answer to this will affect the interpretation of the results.

It sounds like you might benefit from reading (or re-reading) all of my posts in this thread, starting back on February 11, 2015 (near the bottom of "page 2" of the thread).

I'm running out the door, but for the benefit of those who might like to know whether you chose unwatched articles to vandalise I'll pop this here

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2053&start=50#p128404

which is, I presume, the post you're referring to.

[thekohser]

Thanks. If you still have access to a list of unwatched articles, did you choose your 30 test articles in the current experiment from that list? Obviously, the answer to this will affect the interpretation of the results.

It sounds like you might benefit from reading (or re-reading) all of my posts in this thread, starting back on February 11, 2015 (near the bottom of "page 2" of the thread).

I'm running out the door, but for the benefit of those who might like to know whether you chose unwatched articles to vandalise I'll pop this here

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2053&start=50#p128404

which is, I presume, the post you're referring to.

This one is helpful, too.

Anthony, one day you'll learn that just because some nitwit on Wikipedia says something about me or my work, that doesn't make it true; or even if true, it doesn't apply to everything I do, every day.

I thought I've been pretty clear that my experiment would address a wide range of articles, and different types of edits. There was no reason to believe that my experiment would only address unwatched articles -- quite the opposite, in fact, because that would result in a relatively impotent outcome.

[Anthonyhcole]

Anthony, one day you'll learn that just because some nitwit on Wikipedia says something about me or my work, that doesn't make it true; or even if true, it doesn't apply to everything I do, every day.

I thought I've been pretty clear that my experiment would address a wide range of articles, and different types of edits. There was no reason to believe that my experiment would only address unwatched articles -- quite the opposite, in fact, because that would result in a relatively impotent outcome.

Bugger. Now I'm very late. I ended up reading everything, not just your posts. Greg, I give you a great deal more credit than you think, and I never believe anything. I inferred from the thread that you hadn't included only unwatched articles, and you've now confirmed that. Still, was the number of watchers a selection criterion?

[Jim]

and I never believe anything.

I don't believe that.

[thekohser]

Bugger. Now I'm very late. I ended up reading everything, not just your posts.

WPO's addictive, ain't it?

To answer your question, I never considered the number of page watchers as a criterion for selection of my articles. I did consider average page views, though. Sometimes I chose random articles, and other times I chose links to things I've heard of (from random articles that I've never heard of). In one case, I deliberately chose an article that Jimbo had given attention to, in order to see if he would notice (he did not). Also, in that same case, I felt that the subject of the article had once lied to me about not being involved in the creation of his Wikipedia article, so I wondered if he himself would have been watching and reverted the falsehood inserted (he did not).

[Carcharoth]

I suppose now, in the mental assessment I make of a page on Wikipedia and how reliable it looks, I'll have to factor in the probability that it was involved in an experiment like the one Greg has done here (or indeed any such experiment by anyone, as Andreas pointed out another example earlier). If you are using WP properly, you are already on the alert for things like that.

I have at times, when reading a WP article, noticed something that didn't seem quite right, and when looking into it further, found some mistake (usually a typo in a date or something). *shrug* Part of the amazing thing about WP is that it is so large that the probability that an article some random person uses on a random day will have this sort of subtle vandalism in it is still rather small. Maybe a statistician can calculate the probability? And page views is a poor measure of whether such deliberately inserted misinformation has caused damage. There will be people who read the page, copy the information, realise it is wrong, find the correction, and then don't bother to go back and fix the WP page. There are 'reliable' sources out there that have demonstrably got something wrong. If I notice this when looking up something, do I go and complain to them about it? Maybe. Maybe not. The same applies to Wikipedia.

On the point that many news sources and random people on the street don't realise they need to be cautious about using Wikipedia (or indeed any source - i.e. the need not to be credulous), I agree fully. That point should be made forcefully. Experiments like the one Greg has conducted can play a part in that, but only a part. If not followed up properly [and carried out ethically], will it have any effect? Only if you have the time to spend on it, which to be fair, many here do.

[One of the fascinating things about Wikipediocracy, is that people spend as much time here and engaged in criticism as others do on Wikipedia - both sets of users are in a sense part of the same 'community', drawn to Wikipedia whether it be to edit or criticise it.]

[Jim]

One of the fascinating things about Wikipediocracy, is that people spend as much time here and engaged in criticism as others do on Wikipedia - both sets of users are in a sense part of the same 'community', drawn to Wikipedia whether it be to edit or criticise it.

That's not it at all.
Wikipedia is a reality, like it or not. Some like it, some don't, some see problems, and they comment.

Implying that everyone who has an opinion on wikipedia therefore becomes part of your "community" is bizarre, and cultish, speaking to a need for "control"

Spending time criticising something doesn't imply buying into it.

[Carcharoth]

Spending time criticising something doesn't imply buying into it.

Oh, you can still be part of something without buying into it. It was something Vigilant said over here that struck a chord with me:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6147&p=134576#p134539

"In the long run, it turned out better for me. [...] I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave. I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours."

What I don't get is the mindset that thinks that spending time at a criticism site is any more productive than spending time at the site under criticism itself. If you think you can produce and effect and initiate lasting change, yes, but is that really the underlying point of Wikipediocracy? Or is it just people criticising because they like the sound of their own voices?

Some here are clearly trying to effect change (and doing so effectively with some of the press coverage). Others are just angry and have chips of varying sizes on their shoulders (and a lot of time to spend here). Working out which is which is not that easy, but I think it is clear that some are here for the same reasons that they'd be on Wikipedia if they were of a slightly different mindset.

Or to put things another way, you can spend years on Wikipedia, or years here, but at the end of the day, what is it actually achieving? The conceit might be that anyone can do anything to shape the future course of events. That may be an overly cynical and nihilistic viewpoint, but it is something that fundamentally is a characteristic of Wikipedia (and other similar social constructs): ultimately there is no easy way to control things and/or effect change. Bit like trying to steer an oil tanker, or run the government of a country.

[DanMurphy]

Part of the amazing thing about WP is that it is so large that the probability that an article some random person uses on a random day will have this sort of subtle vandalism in it is still rather small.

Math is hard.

[Jim]

Part of the amazing thing about WP is that it is so large that the probability that an article some random person uses on a random day will have this sort of subtle vandalism in it is still rather small.

Math is hard.

Giving an actual shit is harder. I'll wait. It's bound to happen.

[Vigilant]

Spending time criticising something doesn't imply buying into it.

Oh, you can still be part of something without buying into it. It was something Vigilant said over here that struck a chord with me:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6147&p=134576#p134539

"In the long run, it turned out better for me. [...] I'd have wasted a ton of time working with a fundamentally broken power structure only to eventually get pissed off an leave. I'd have a splinter in my mind about those wasted hours."

What I don't get is the mindset that thinks that spending time at a criticism site is any more productive than spending time at the site under criticism itself. If you think you can produce and effect and initiate lasting change, yes, but is that really the underlying point of Wikipediocracy? Or is it just people criticising because they like the sound of their own voices?

Some here are clearly trying to effect change (and doing so effectively with some of the press coverage). Others are just angry and have chips of varying sizes on their shoulders (and a lot of time to spend here). Working out which is which is not that easy, but I think it is clear that some are here for the same reasons that they'd be on Wikipedia if they were of a slightly different mindset.

Or to put things another way, you can spend years on Wikipedia, or years here, but at the end of the day, what is it actually achieving? The conceit might be that anyone can do anything to shape the future course of events. That may be an overly cynical and nihilistic viewpoint, but it is something that fundamentally is a characteristic of Wikipedia (and other similar social constructs): ultimately there is no easy way to control things and/or effect change. Bit like trying to steer an oil tanker, or run the government of a country.

Have you ever stood up to bullies?
It's addictive as well.

[Peter Damian]

What I don't get is the mindset that thinks that spending time at a criticism site is any more productive than spending time at the site under criticism itself. If you think you can produce and effect and initiate lasting change, yes, but is that really the underlying point of Wikipediocracy? Or is it just people criticising because they like the sound of their own voices?

1. This is a much safer house than Wikipedia, where even criticising the regime can end up in a ban.

2. Aimed outside: get stuff into the mainstream media that can both affect public opinion and also be cited in Wikipedia.

3. Aimed inside: persuade the more reasonable Wikipedians (such as yourself) that there is something fundamentally wrong and that things need changing. Scott Martin said it the best: he used to think that WO was an evil site and never read it in case he was corrupted. And look at the boy now.

4. I fully endorse Will Burns candidacy for Arbcom last year. We need more of that. Not everyone here agrees, but that's the benefit of this place. A broad church.

[Hex]

For reference, the Arbcom discussion about Greg's edits referred to earlier in this thread has been memoryholed. Here's a link to the last version in page history. And see also Saint Kohser (T-C-L).

Greg, some of your talk page comments were oversighted. What did you say?

[Carcharoth]

For reference, the Arbcom discussion about Greg's edits referred to earlier in this thread has been memoryholed. Here's a link to the last version in page history.

To be fair, declined requests are archived, though only by diff. This one was archived here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =654295070

That is standard procedure, and this request wasn't treated any differently to any others.

I am feeling slightly less cynical than I was earlier, mainly because I came across this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermon_Carey_Bumpus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumpus

Lots of people with the surname Bumpus. Who'd a thunk it?

[Triptych]

Lots of people with the surname Bumpus. Who'd a thunk it?

What is it? Roman, like Romulus and Remus?

I knew a guy first-named "Trampus." I blinked, and then asked again, and then tried to suppress an incredulous smile which he understood and took in good humor as he told me a third time. I'm glad his mom never met a Bumpus.

Knew a guy named Steve Fagg in junior high. Being named Fagg was an heck of thing to endure in junior high in the USA then. I'm sure it's a proud name with history though.

[Anthonyhcole]

If you are using WP properly, you are already on the alert ... many news sources and random people on the street don't realise they need to be cautious about using Wikipedia...

Would you support a prominent disclaimer to that effect at the top of each Wikipedia article?

...the probability that an article some random person uses on a random day will have this sort of subtle vandalism in it is still rather small.

Agree. But the probability that the random article will have good-faith errors is higher.

Maybe a statistician can calculate the probability?

Of course they could. It is a scandal in itself that the foundation has devoted no resources to making that happen. It smells of willful ignorance to me.

[Johnny Au]

A basketball player from Medicine Hat, AB has an unfortunate surname: http://www.thestar.com/sports/2015/03/2 ... rsial.html and here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/m ... -1.3006783

[Zoloft]

A basketball player from Medicine Hat, AB has an unfortunate surname: http://www.thestar.com/sports/2015/03/2 ... rsial.html and here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/m ... -1.3006783

Despite its spelling, his last name is pronounced ‘Foo-key’, and he says it is come from German roots.
“It doesn’t mean what people think it means,” the player told the Medicine Hat News. “In German it means fox.”

[thekohser]

Greg, some of your talk page comments were oversighted. What did you say?

I already gave details about this above (find "Chenango"). You're the second person who has failed to pick up on my explanation of the oversighting. Am I not communicating properly on this?

[greyed.out.fields]

A basketball player from Medicine Hat, AB has an unfortunate surname: http://www.thestar.com/sports/2015/03/2 ... rsial.html and here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/m ... -1.3006783

Despite its spelling, his last name is pronounced ‘Foo-key’, and he says it is come from German roots.
“It doesn’t mean what people think it means,” the player told the Medicine Hat News. “In German it means fox.”

And Hulk (footballer) (T-H-L) is pronounced "hoo-kee". Portuguese is weird. The relationship (or lack of it) between spelling and pronunciation is almost as bad as English.
In standard German, fox is "fuchs", but in some varieties /x/ and /k/ are allophones, etc, etc.

[Hex]

Greg, some of your talk page comments were oversighted. What did you say?

I already gave details about this above (find "Chenango"). You're the second person who has failed to pick up on my explanation of the oversighting. Am I not communicating properly on this?

So you did. Sorry, it seems that there was a chunk of this thread that I missed earlier on.

3. Aimed inside: persuade the more reasonable Wikipedians (such as yourself) that there is something fundamentally wrong and that things need changing. Scott Martin said it the best: he used to think that WO was an evil site and never read it in case he was corrupted. And look at the boy now.

The bit about "in case I was corrupted" isn't quite right. I had swallowed the hysterical Wikipedian portrayal of this site and WR hook line and sinker, it's true. That image had been confirmed in a superficial way by the times that I'd dipped randomly into WR and seen some of the worst posters' excesses, and I had no interest in being associated with it. It only took a short period of reading WO with an open mind to do away with that.

[Demonology]

...if you happened upon a bunch of self-righteous and arrogant fools who taunted and mocked you, and you then discovered that you can send a dozen of them into a day-long conniption fit by dropping by their secret clubhouse and simply dropping a lit cigarette on the floor and walking away, you wouldn't do that, just for entertainment purposes? Not to mention, what if other people in your town will pay you handsomely to write a few brochures that might look nice hanging on the clubhouse wall? Why should I walk away from that?

This is a delightfully perfect analogy, especially when I think of how things played out when Saint Kohser came back to the clubhouse to offer to clean up some cigarette burns he had secretly left. Tantrums were thrown and spaghetti spilled from the Hell in a Bucket as he scrambled to reburn the cleaned upholstery while trying to attack the few level-headed club members who were letting the man do his work. "Revoke their member privileges!" the bucket boy cried and pleaded.

Then, the fracas caused senior club member Newyorkbrad to awaken and storm downstairs where he kicked and screamed, his lip quivering with unbridled rage as he pontificated on why Saint Kohser needed to be destroyed immediately.

The majority of his mischievous deeds left intact, Saint Kohser may have shrugged and laughed as he was hurried out the door.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know I thoroughly enjoyed reading about your experiment, and seeing the spectacle it produced in the clubhouse.

[thekohser]

Results have been announced.

Wikipedians batted .370 on the "swiftly reverted" index.

[tarantino]

Not real creative but this addition to No Kyung-tae (T-H-L) has lasted three years and four months.