Last visit was: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:42 pm
It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:42 pm



 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Jimbo calls for revolution on commons 
Author Message
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.


Mon May 13, 2013 9:19 pm
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.


Seems he was shocked that Commons had Black cock.

Quote:
Go to the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_penis Human penis] category at commons (NSFW, obviously) and notice something: most of the images are identified using scientific language, as in "flaccid caucasian penis" and "human penis and scrotum". Three, however, are identified as "black cock". The source? No source, of course, it's an upload of "own work" by a single purpose account. Now, to be clear, I do not think that the predominantly male and white editors at commons intend to be actively racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951925


Mon May 13, 2013 9:28 pm
Member Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:50 am
Posts: 14
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.



Topic obsessives who post thousands of edits a day are not going to be worried about a few part time objectors, especialy when the obsessives already have advanced permissions to block anyone they want - The foundation needs to cut the commons loose - not a penny more in fundings from donations - ASAP - goodbye and good luck


Mon May 13, 2013 9:38 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
keemanan wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.



Topic obsessives who post thousands of edits a day are not going to be worried about a few part time objectors, especialy when the obsessives already have advanced permissions to block anyone they want - The foundation needs to cut the commons loose - not a penny more in fundings from donations - ASAP - goodbye and good luck

Why cut off your nose to spite your face.
Just revoke all advanced permissions.
The WMF wiki looks like a dry run for GTFO commons.
It's the WMF's hosting, domains, software, etc, etc.

If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.


Mon May 13, 2013 9:45 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Posts: 937
Wikipedia User: Tarc
Wikipedia Review Member: Tarc
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.


The problem is, the unwashed masses tend to stay in their place until the revolutionary event either happens or is an inevitable certainty; they don't lead. If there's some sort of seismic V for Vendetta-style explosion, then the masses will come.

Jimbo or stewards or whoever, needs to man up and desysop the russavias and mattbucks of the realm.

_________________
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


Tue May 14, 2013 12:27 am
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 512
Location: Here, for whatever reason, is the world. And here it stays. With me on it.
Unread post Jimbo is undecided about what he thinks
Jimbo is undecided about what he thinks even in fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I'm undecided about what I think - even in fantasy -

_________________
Albert Einstein: "I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots." That day has already arrived


Tue May 14, 2013 1:04 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 1841
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
Just revoke all advanced permissions.
The WMF wiki looks like a dry run for GTFO commons.
It's the WMF's hosting, domains, software, etc, etc.

If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.


+1.

RfB


Tue May 14, 2013 2:43 am
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:03 am
Posts: 170
Wikipedia Review Member: Silent Editor
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Maybe all those who recently lost their admin bits from the foundation wiki could spend their freed up time helping out at commons?

_________________
-- Silent Editor


Tue May 14, 2013 7:24 am
Online
Global Moderators
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7468
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue May 14, 2013 7:54 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 1869
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

"...and nothing of value was lost"

_________________
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Tue May 14, 2013 9:53 am WWW
Habitué

Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm
Posts: 1191
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
There are some genuinely good photos and other media there. Its a shame it gets drowned in shit.


Tue May 14, 2013 10:15 am
Online
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Anroth wrote:
There are some genuinely good photos and other media there. Its a shame it gets drowned in shit.


Indeed. They should be promoting the archive rather than filling it up with scraped crap. If you are looking for good photo of X would you want to go hunting through a bunch of so-so photos, then find out that the photo you've chosen is probably nicked from elsewhere or the photog is not contactable? More then likely you'd go to flickr use their selection of relevant or 'interesting' images and if you didn't find anything in the CC pile, then maybe you'd offer a a handful of photogs a few bucks for usage rights. That approach is going to save you money rather than fuck about for ages on Commons and chase down the copyright owner.


Tue May 14, 2013 10:51 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 2006
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

Why should a change of ownership have that effect, unless the WMF get Google to "tweak" their search algorithm?

_________________
No connection with anyone else of the same name!


Tue May 14, 2013 12:14 pm WWW
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Posts: 134
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
lilburne wrote:
Seems he was shocked that Commons had Black cock.

Quote:
Go to the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_penis Human penis] category at commons (NSFW, obviously) and notice something: most of the images are identified using scientific language, as in "flaccid caucasian penis" and "human penis and scrotum". Three, however, are identified as "black cock". The source? No source, of course, it's an upload of "own work" by a single purpose account. Now, to be clear, I do not think that the predominantly male and white editors at commons intend to be actively racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951925


I'm confused: as a caucasian male who suffers from a rare and unfortunate pigmentation condition, what file name should I give if I want to photograph my junk and upload it to commons and am I being racist if I describe my genitalia by its color?

I will agree however that "Black Cock" is confusing for anyone looking for male chickens with a dark plumage but it doesn't help that actual chickens are under names such as File:Midnight1101.jpg (T-H-L).

_________________
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok


Tue May 14, 2013 3:06 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


Tue May 14, 2013 3:10 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Back to my original point, before we were derailed by purpose based anuses...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope
Quote:
Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... pe/Summary
Quote:
Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others.

The first sentences from each page.
I think there's a disconnect here.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:12 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am
Posts: 958
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


That is odd. If you search for the "purpose" of Commons, you should get back a penis. Must be a bug.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:22 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Mason wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


That is odd. If you search for the "purpose" of Commons, you should get back a penis. Must be a bug.

Strangely enough, if you type in "wikimedia commons purpose" to google, you get back the project scope page as the first hit.

This makes me wonder how many innocuous search terms end up with inappropriate sexual pictures being returned on the first page of of commons search results.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:29 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am
Posts: 958
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
Pretty remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554951112
Quote:
I think no area of the entire Wikimedia movement would benefit more from easier participation than commons. The solution is to overwhelm the people who aren't doing their jobs there with people who will. That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

He's promulgating an invasion of commons by non-insane people who would just take over.
Sounds like a cybernetic version of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Good times.


Jimbo can do one of three things:
1. Say what the Commons admins are doing is fine, thus provoking a possible backlash amongst sensible people, who may stop donating.
2. Actually do something about the Commons admins, thus provoking a possible backlash amongst the Commons wackos, who may stop donating.
3. Acknowledge that there's a problem but hope someone else fixes it.

I do admire his candor for stating flat-out that #3 was his plan.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:30 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2263
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Quote:
That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though


Yes, the banter at Wales talk page is good for only two things: As evidence that he can't be ignorant of the extent of the problems,and to demonstrate that he exercises no influence or authority over the various projects that the Wikimedia Foundation collects so much money to run.

Fixing the problems at commons would be very easy: Ban bot uploads, require all uploads to either come from the rights holder themselves (that is, no flickr, ever) or with iron clad evidence they're in the public domain, require full model consent forms for all naked pictures to be on file with the Foundation (as are required for the porn industry), and rewrite the rules of that funhouse to reflect all this.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the power to make all this happen by snapping its fingers. It will not do so. Wales will not fight to make it so.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:36 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
DanMurphy wrote:
Quote:
That's not something I'm in a position personally to achieve, though


Yes, the banter at Wales talk page is good for only two things: As evidence that he can't be ignorant of the extent of the problems,and to demonstrate that he exercises no influence or authority over the various projects that the Wikimedia Foundation collects so much money to run.

Fixing the problems at commons would be very easy: Ban bot uploads, require all uploads to either come from the rights holder themselves (that is, no flickr, ever) or with iron clad evidence they're in the public domain, require full model consent forms for all naked pictures to be on file with the Foundation (as are required for the porn industry), and rewrite the rules of that funhouse to reflect all this.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the power to make all this happen by snapping its fingers. It will not do so. Wales will not fight to make it so.

They also need to get rid of the worst of their admins and they need an opt-out/default to delete attitude about pictures that show identifiable people.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:45 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2263
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Basically, I'd envision rewriting the rules so that the bad apples hands are tied, but tossing out the porn extremists certainly wouldn't hurt.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:48 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 1841
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
DanMurphy wrote:

Fixing the problems at commons would be very easy: Ban bot uploads, require all uploads to either come from the rights holder themselves (that is, no flickr, ever) or with iron clad evidence they're in the public domain, require full model consent forms for all naked pictures to be on file with the Foundation (as are required for the porn industry), and rewrite the rules of that funhouse to reflect all this.

The Wikimedia Foundation has the power to make all this happen by snapping its fingers. It will not do so. Wales will not fight to make it so.


Pretty much right on target.

This change needs to come from the top. There would be a reaction in the aftermath by The Usual Suspects who would either exit by themselves (most likely) or would be easy to push off the cliff.

RfB


Last edited by Randy from Boise on Tue May 14, 2013 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue May 14, 2013 3:50 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
DanMurphy wrote:
Basically, I'd envision rewriting the rules so that the bad apples hands are tied, but tossing out the porn extremists certainly wouldn't hurt.

I see what you're saying, but you'd need to make the policies non-rewriteable.
I really think that the opt-out/default to delete stance is imperative as well.


Tue May 14, 2013 3:51 pm
Postmaster General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5178
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


Don't you realize that image does serve a "purpose"? It decorates the Swahili Wikipedia article about Mkundu (anus), which essentially reads:
Quote:
Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.


Please remember that Wikipedia is not for you, or for me. It's for "that little girl in Africa" to learn more about her anus.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue May 14, 2013 4:05 pm WWW
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:31 am
Posts: 937
Wikipedia User: Tarc
Wikipedia Review Member: Tarc
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Outsider wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
If Russavia, Mattbuck and Naibot want to go run their own commons, let them fork it.
Done.

It would die very, very quickly, once it was disconnected from the Google link firehose.

Why should a change of ownership have that effect, unless the WMF get Google to "tweak" their search algorithm?


Well, if the current Commons was ever disassociated from the WMF, you don't think they'd be allowed to keep the current URL do you?

_________________
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


Tue May 14, 2013 4:07 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:59 pm
Posts: 134
Wikipedia User: Woden.Ragnarok
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
thekohser wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


Don't you realize that image does serve a "purpose"? It decorates the Swahili Wikipedia article about Mkundu (anus), which essentially reads:
Quote:
Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.


Please remember that Wikipedia is not for you, or for me. It's for "that little girl in Africa" to learn more about her anus.


Japanese Wikipedia seem to be using it to educate about female reproduction as well.

_________________
-- Woden "A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it." Ragnarok


Tue May 14, 2013 4:08 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
thekohser wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
I went to the commons' home page to search for the stated purpose of commons.
I remember there's a substantial difference between the summary and the full pages.

Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...
Search:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... l%3ASearch
First result(NSFW):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... italia.jpg

What the fuck, commons?


Don't you realize that image does serve a "purpose"? It decorates the Swahili Wikipedia article about Mkundu (anus), which essentially reads:
Quote:
Anus is the part of the human body where the dung comes out of the intestine.


Please remember that Wikipedia is not for you, or for me. It's for "that little girl in Africa" to learn more about her anus.


I love the categories...
Categories:

Photographs by Peter Klashorst
Shaved genitalia (female)
Naked female buttocks
Female human anuses
Female human genitalia

Each click through enlightens me further and further.

Every photo I've clicked through on has a dead link to flickr.


Tue May 14, 2013 4:10 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Using the hot_sex_barnstar deletion discussion as a jumping off point/honeypot, you quickly run into dozens of people who do nothing on commons but upload porn from their particular fetish.

They perform no administrative work, they don't participate in policy discussions, they don't tidy up or categorize anything, they just keep uploading their personal fap stashes to commons.

I wonder why.
Have they no hard drives?
No USB sticks?

It seems to be almost a form of secondary exhibitionism.

For example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Speci ... ns/Luemmel


Tue May 14, 2013 4:27 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =554187373
Quote:
I think that commons policy is enforced inconsistently and also needs some revision. I think that some of the people who are admins at commons are among the weakest admins that we have in all the projects, and that this is a core part of the problem. I think that far too many people on both sides are prone to framing this as having anything at all to do with "prudishness", rather than having to do with what are fundamentally issues of human dignity. I encourage anyone who is concerned about these issues to coordinate carefully, get involved at commons, and work to improve things. I don't have the time, and my own personal conflicts with people at commons lead me to think that I would do more harm than good trying to get personally involved.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 21:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit more, it appears that Jimmy is calling on people to create an anti-commons-idiot cabal.
Maybe wikipediocracy should start its own commons cabal, petition for WMF funds (anyone up for a Shanghai junketmeeting to COORDINATE?), vote for each other at RfA and take over commons...


Tue May 14, 2013 6:52 pm
Member Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:50 am
Posts: 14
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Looking at this a bit more, it appears that Jimmy is calling on people to create an anti-commons-idiot cabal.
Maybe wikipediocracy should start its own commons cabal, petition for WMF funds (anyone up for a Shanghai junketmeeting to COORDINATE?), vote for each other at RfA and take over commons..

I don't think using their methods will succeed, they have a first user monopoly and they are pre entrenched.

Something more drastic will be required to get rid of them, they have total control of commons at the moment.


Tue May 14, 2013 7:09 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Typical Wnt
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555113155
Quote:
Yeah, but who said Commons was ''your'' apartment and not my apartment? or the apartment of the people who actually do watch over its content and generally get rid of many troublesome things at substantial personal legal risk. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons is the WMF's apartment. You and your compatriots are a bunch of filthy squatters, hiding in the tiny guest bedroom while shitting in the closets and pissing on the carpet.
The sooner you're evicted, the sooner the WMF can start cleaning up the mess you guys have left.
The stench might be so bad that we have to just wall off that room.


Tue May 14, 2013 9:23 pm
Member Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 6:50 am
Posts: 14
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Who is this user Wnt ? - a total ass - a free speecher beyond comparison , a rejector of all wiki policies - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... target=Wnt

Here is his IP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... .15.116.59 - Note his anti scientologist entrance to wiki and his Amish location - http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.15.116.59

Note one of his very early edits , after a couple of days, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =186222745 - Labia may be shaped by intentional pulling, usually done by an aunt on girls beginning at the age of four or five, a practice that has been characterized as a form of [[female circumcision]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.developmentsupport.org/FGM%20Community%20Awareness%20Report.htm|title=Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation}}</ref> Alternatively, [[labiaplasty]] may be used to reduce the appearance of elongated labia.


Tue May 14, 2013 9:34 pm
Postmaster General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5178
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
keemanan wrote:

Ye gads -- dial-up access. Poor peasant.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue May 14, 2013 10:33 pm WWW
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 469
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
thekohser wrote:
keemanan wrote:

Ye gads -- dial-up access. Poor peasant.


I don't know that I would assume that a five-year-old IP address was still owned by the same provider, though.


Tue May 14, 2013 10:57 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Ming wrote:
thekohser wrote:
keemanan wrote:

Ye gads -- dial-up access. Poor peasant.


I don't know that I would assume that a five-year-old IP address was still owned by the same provider, though.

Interesting that it claims to be a Dynamic IP, yet few of the surrounding IPs have any edits to them.


Tue May 14, 2013 11:08 pm
Online
Global Moderators
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7468
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
keemanan wrote:
Who is this user Wnt ? - a total ass - a free speecher beyond comparison , a rejector of all wiki policies

Thank you sir. We know all that. Also, :offtopic:

Wnt thread is ongoing, over yonder.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=464

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue May 14, 2013 11:56 pm WWW
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Things are getting weird on Jimmy's page.
Wnt mentioning Beta_M aka VolodyA!_V_Anarhist obliquely.
Talking about the unfairness of his ban, etc, etc.

Here's what your childlove advocate has been up to since he was permabanned from wikimedia sites. (NSFW)
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/Special ... V_Anarhist

You can see the links to this shithole from one of Beta_M's old pages
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph ... d=62751020

And the man himself (NSFW)
http://www.freedomporn.org/smut/File:Vo ... review.png

Here's a guy to rally around you commons fuckheads. A real freedom fighter!
Get right on that shit.

Edit:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ ... _reason.3F
Why did Saibo not be permabanned?


Wed May 15, 2013 12:02 am
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm
Posts: 469
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Meanwhile, B (T-C-L) pegs the foundation for its irresponsibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=555128673&oldid=555120237

Quote:
Why doesn't the Foundation step in and say, "no"? The Foundation needs to be the adult in the room and say, "no, we're not running a pornography website here". You're never going to convince people to change their moral values and if someone sees no problem with hosting pornography in plain view of children on something that's supposed to be an encyclopedia, no amount of rehashing this topic is going to make them see the light. The Foundation needs to be the adult in the room, require that useless explicit files be deleted, and require that the ones retained be completely excludable by some sort of filter. [....] I'm sure that the same people who want Wikipedia/Commons to be a porn site will then want to argue that there's no difference between an encyclopedic image of nudity (like the one found at human body vs the more closeups of pierced genitalia with semen, but I would think that the adults in the room could make the differentiation. It's time for an adult to step in and just fix the problem.


But then, you have to think that an organization which lets 13/14-year-olds run the place has a problem stepping up to adulthood.


Wed May 15, 2013 12:22 am
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
And Wnt is back to peddling bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =555141716
Quote:
Nonsense. I've gone on the talk page for that policy something like three times already trying to get them to repeal that part of the policy, and every time I get nothing but ''Nein, nein, nein!'' ... even though nobody and I mean ''nobody'' enforces the policy they have written. I don't pretend to understand that, I just keep commenting on it in the hope somebody will do something someday. But the thing is, there's a difference between holding a one-time wide-ranging discussion in a special noindexed forum to decide whether a user, to a ''preponderance of the evidence'', may be blocked based on child protection concerns - and going on widely read talk pages like this and, for any small reason, repeating claims that the person is definitely X. I was persuaded, to a preponderance of the evidence, in the Commons discussion - I never reached reasonable doubt, but I didn't think I needed to. I think other people were changing their opinions as the discussion proceeded, and more might have joined and continued to push the vote in the direction I'd gone. But the thing is, we're talking about a living person who someone can fairly easily figure out who it is we're speaking of, and according to stuff like BLP we don't make negative assertions about them confidently based on preponderance of evidence, or indeed, even on 'reasonable doubt' of an open talk or administrative forum. We'd need multiple secondary sources independent of the subject and all that. So while I favor having some leeway to discuss these things, we should avoid pretending that we really know ''for sure'' when there are so many ways for bullies online to deceive us. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


Beta_M was a child pornography distributor and a childlove(in his OWN words, barf for name) advocate.
WMF was absolutely right to nuke him and they should have nuked every other apologist with him.


Wed May 15, 2013 1:42 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 1869
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Vigilant wrote:
You can't make this up.
Silly me, I type in purpose into the search box and get back this lady's anus...

I've raised this matter at the Commons village pump.

_________________
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Wed May 15, 2013 10:34 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 2006
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Woden.Ragnarok wrote:
I'm confused: as a caucasian male who suffers from a rare and unfortunate pigmentation condition, what file name should I give if I want to photograph my junk and upload it to commons

That's easy: "Cock of caucasian with rare pigmentation condition". (I removed "male"; that's presumably obvious, even to Commons admins.)
Quote:
am I being racist if I describe my genitalia by its color?

It depends on whether Commons admins like you.

_________________
No connection with anyone else of the same name!


Wed May 15, 2013 4:56 pm WWW
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 399
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... nothing.3F

Russavia seems to think the IPs posting in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page are EricBarbour and Gregory Kohs. Not many people commenting in that section seem to agree, but Mathsci apparently does, since he's tagged one of the IPs as an EricBarbour sock.

EricBarbour, was this you? If it wasn't, someone should remove the sock tag. In the discussion there, Russavia's accusation doesn't seem to be finding much support from anyone else.


Last edited by Captain Occam on Wed May 15, 2013 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed May 15, 2013 10:16 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2263
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Captain Occam wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Did_you_know_that_Gregory_Kohs_and_EricBarbour_are_trolling_you_and_the_community_does_nothing.3F

Russavia seems to think the IPs posting in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page are EricBarbour and Gregory Kohs. Not many people commenting in that section seem to agree, but Mathsci apparently does, since he's tagged one of the IPs as an EricBarbour sock.

EricBarbour, was this you? If it wasn't, someone should remove the sock tag. In the discussion there, Russavia's accusation doesn't seem to be finding much support from anyone else.

Let's assume it was them. So. What. ?

They're lucky to have Mr. Bibby contributing to the "sum of all human knowledge," aint they?


Wed May 15, 2013 10:43 pm
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 399
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Mathsci's already reverted the IP several times under the assumption that it's someone's sockpuppet, but refused to say whose he thought it was when Cla68 asked him about it here. That's what caused my userpage at Wikipedia to be fully protected. After two months, he and Russavia have finally said whose sock they think it is (EricBarbour's), so I'd like to know whether they're right.


Wed May 15, 2013 11:00 pm
Online
Global Moderators
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7468
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Captain Occam wrote:
EricBarbour, was this you?

That is not my IP address. Mathsci is a fucking moron. I have never edited the "List of Wikipedia controversies", and
am insulted that he would try to claim otherwise.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Thu May 16, 2013 12:24 am WWW
Global Moderators
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:28 pm
Posts: 673
Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Wikipedia User: Alison
Wikipedia Review Member: Alison
Actual Name: Alison Cassidy
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
I can see Eric's IP addresses on here :blink: for the last few months and guess what - that IP isn't in there. Wrong location, wrong ISP, etc, etc ...

_________________
-- Allie - Breakin' da WikiHabit™


Thu May 16, 2013 12:37 am WWW
Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Posts: 399
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
OK, so Mathsci was reverting the IP on my userpage with the edit summary "wikipediocracy sockpuppet", and when my user page was protected it was with the summary "persistent sock puppetry". When he wasn't willing to say whose sock he though this was, the sockpuppetry claim was impossible to disprove. But now that we know he thought it was EricBarbour, we can also know that his accusation was wrong, and that the given reason for my userpage to be protected was invalid.

Does my userpage just stay protected now, even now that the reason it was protected is known to not be valid anymore?

(BTW, if this discussion gets too far off-topic, I'd be okay with moving the posts about this IP to the earlier thread about it.)


Last edited by Captain Occam on Thu May 16, 2013 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu May 16, 2013 1:07 am
Online
Global Moderators
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7468
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
Mathsci and Russavia owe me an apology. Plain and simple.

They're going down the same stupid road that Will Beback tried in 2009.

And just in case of oversight, here is what Prioryman posted on that thread which was "redacted".
Quote:
::: Matt, I don't believe it's justifiable to ban people simply because they participate in the Fuckwit Forum. On the other hand, it does serve a useful purpose in red-flagging that whatever they say is here most likely (a) pointless (b) trollish (c) dickish (d) stupid or (e) some combination of (a) to (d). Think of it as a filter, if you like. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

_________________
ImageImageImage


Thu May 16, 2013 1:21 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 1841
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Unread post Re: Jimbo calls for revolution on commons
EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci and Russavia owe me an apology. Plain and simple.

They're going down the same stupid road that Will Beback tried in 2009.

And just in case of oversight, here is what Prioryman posted on that thread which was "redacted".
Quote:
::: Matt, I don't believe it's justifiable to ban people simply because they participate in the Fuckwit Forum. On the other hand, it does serve a useful purpose in red-flagging that whatever they say is here most likely (a) pointless (b) trollish (c) dickish (d) stupid or (e) some combination of (a) to (d). Think of it as a filter, if you like. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the link to WikiChecker, Eric. And it still works.

Calling Customer Service at Wikipediocracy... We need Wikichecker links for every poster at WPO.

RfB
http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Carrite&l=1000


Thu May 16, 2013 1:40 am
 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndyTheGrump, Bielle, CCBot [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.