Overrepresented Content on Wikipedia

[mac]

There's even an interwiki link for Wikifur.

[Zoloft]

There's even an interwiki link for Wikifur.

*reads list*
SeaPig?
You know what? I don't even want to know.

[Jim]

There's even an interwiki link for Wikifur.

*reads list*
SeaPig?
You know what? I don't even want to know.

I'm not even looking.

You can't make me.

[Poetlister]

There's even an interwiki link for Wikifur.

*reads list*
SeaPig?
You know what? I don't even want to know.

As an occasional Python programmer, I can reassure you. It's the Seattle Python Interest Group!

There are also entries for Disinfopedia and Encyc. (Aren't they the same site?)

[Hersch]

Many furry fandom related articles are well guarded by the "Furluminati". Kevin and Kell (T-H-L) is 31,524 bytes with 53 references:

There's your blog topic!....

Looks promising -- "The Fast and the Furriest"

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

[JCM]

Many furry fandom related articles are well guarded by the "Furluminati". Kevin and Kell (T-H-L) is 31,524 bytes with 53 references:

There's your blog topic!....

Looks promising -- "The Fast and the Furriest"

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

Fanboys out of control, maybe? I guess one might be able to tie in the roads discussion as well, if one were pressed for material.

[EricBarbour]

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

Fanboys out of control, maybe? I guess one might be able to tie in the roads discussion as well, if one were pressed for material.

That would work. Point to the areas of WP that attract fanboy craziness the most:
--cartoons, comic books, manga/anime
--military history
--videogames
--science fiction, esp the Doctor Who business
--female diva pop singers
--roads
--railroads
--and of course, the largest area of all, football.

[mac]

Many furry fandom related articles are well guarded by the "Furluminati". Kevin and Kell (T-H-L) is 31,524 bytes with 53 references:

There's your blog topic!....

Looks promising -- "The Fast and the Furriest"

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

If you're going with the furry fandom examples, my experience with furry fandom (T-H-L) is of article OWNership, which may or may not have a place in your blog post (if so, i can post some more links). But for the overrepresented angle, have a look at Uncle Kage (T-H-L), list of furry conventions (T-H-L) among others that I can't name off the top of my head (I notice they removed the "yiff" image from furry fandom lol). Maybe a mention of how the furry community doesn't like to be associated with the brony community, and vice versa (in general, that is... individual experiences might vary) could be good for a laugh (I remember Silver seren (T-C-L) fighting to keep BroNYcon out of list of furry conventions), or mention how they use Wikipedia to downplay the negative press associated with furries, especially an ancient Vanity Fair article... they hate that one.

PS: I did a quick search for you just to see if any of that is even of any interest.
Here is where Mwalimu59 re-added a bunch of "convenience links" the day of my ban from Wikipedia, here is where they try to downplay the nature of "yiffing", and here is where they argue that bronies are not furries. This was a poorly thought out campaign to get the furry Wikiproject to not use the WikiFur logo as the logo of their wikiproject. It went nowhere, but my days there were numbered anyway.

[JCM]

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

Fanboys out of control, maybe? I guess one might be able to tie in the roads discussion as well, if one were pressed for material.

That would work. Point to the areas of WP that attract fanboy craziness the most:
--cartoons, comic books, manga/anime
--military history
--videogames
--science fiction, esp the Doctor Who business
--female diva pop singers
--roads
--railroads
--and of course, the largest area of all, football.

The only two of the above I might question myself are military history and railroads. The first one is at least a valid academic area, and so far as I can tell most of the books written about it are generally credible. And I am currently proofreading some old encyclopedia stuff for wikisource and so far as I can tell even the smaller cities with short one paragraph articles there mention the specific railroads which serviced the city at that time. Granted, railroads might now be less important, and I am virtually certain they are, but they were, in their day, probably more important than roads are today, and the comparatively small number of companies involved seem to have had a fairly serious influence on the development of non-regional culture.

[Johnny Au]

EricBarbour probably included rapid transit under the railroad umbrella as well, especially given that subways/metros are essentially railroads.

[eagle]

EricBarbour probably included rapid transit under the railroad umbrella as well, especially given that subways/metros are essentially railroads.

But they are different. Unlike railroads which are interconnected, rapid transit systems are closed. They can be heavy rail (which has exclusive right-of-way) or light rail (trolley, street car, which may share a right of way with cars and other vehicles.)

Both are shiny, powerful and presented to small children as potentially hazardous. So, they attract the attention of young boys, much as fire engines do. The interest and attraction of adults is more difficult to explain. However, in the case of transit systems, most represent large public infrastructure investment with the attendant concern of citizens as well as of the transit users.

[JCM]

To be honest, I would have no idea how to approach this topic in blog article. Any suggestions?

I think it might be best to limit any particular blog article to only a small group of topics.

Using Eric's list,

That would work. Point to the areas of WP that attract fanboy craziness the most:
--cartoons, comic books, manga/anime
--military history
--videogames
--science fiction, esp the Doctor Who business
--female diva pop singers
--roads
--railroads
--and of course, the largest area of all, football.

Some of the content related to cartoons and comics of all sorts might be considered justifiaable, if not necessarily meet notability. When an Amazo (T-H-L) shows up as a villain in a Batman book, for instance, it might well be possible that some of the readers will say WTF because they might not know the previous history of the villain, which is much more one of their science-fiction than detective characters. And, particularly considering the way both DC and Marvel place mix-and-match with all sorts of characters, there can be seen as being a need. Maybe, to a lesser extent, as someone who doesn't play video games, the same thing might happen to some degree in that field as well. But those topics, along with the continuing soap operas like General Hospital (T-H-L) and EastEnders (T-H-L), and I guess Doctor Who, which regularly reuses some characters, might make one blog post between them.

Sports fanboys of all sorts could obviously be a blog post unto itself.

A few others I might add would be the various wikiprojects and articles on individual TV shows. God help me, given the serial nature of a lot of dramatic TV shows, I can see having some few "episode guides" categories for dramatic shows, but I have a hell of a lot more trouble seeing justification for similar sets of articles for half-hour comedies like Friends (T-H-L).

And, beyond pop divas, the whole music industry as a whole is spectacularly overrepresented. 60,000 articles (not counting categories) on individual songs? Really? And the number of now often inactive WikiProjects on minor music acts is stunning.

Just a few ideas, anyway.

[Johnny Au]

EricBarbour probably included rapid transit under the railroad umbrella as well, especially given that subways/metros are essentially railroads.

But they are different. Unlike railroads which are interconnected, rapid transit systems are closed. They can be heavy rail (which has exclusive right-of-way) or light rail (trolley, street car, which may share a right of way with cars and other vehicles.)

Both are shiny, powerful and presented to small children as potentially hazardous. So, they attract the attention of young boys, much as fire engines do. The interest and attraction of adults is more difficult to explain. However, in the case of transit systems, most represent large public infrastructure investment with the attendant concern of citizens as well as of the transit users.

Even the most minor and generic railroad station, as well as the most minor rapid transit station (heavy rail and light rail), have individual articles.

There are even articles on specific rolling stock of small rapid transit systems even, including those unique to said rapid transit system.

[Poetlister]

They can be heavy rail (which has exclusive right-of-way) or light rail (trolley, street car, which may share a right of way with cars and other vehicles.)

Is that a formal definition? The Docklands Light Railway in East London has exclusive right-of-way.

[eagle]

They can be heavy rail (which has exclusive right-of-way) or light rail (trolley, street car, which may share a right of way with cars and other vehicles.)

Is that a formal definition? The Docklands Light Railway in East London has exclusive right-of-way.

No it is not, and a number of light rail systems have exclusive right-of-way on portions of their routes. The other factors are the number of cars in a train, and the passenger capacity and weight of the trains.

For a propaganda response, you can visit: http://www.lrta.org/explain.html

[Johnny Au]

Dwarfism#Art and media depictions (T-H-L) and List of Dwarfism media depictions (T-H-L) have a disproportionate number of examples from fantasy fiction, especially those from the 20th and 21st centuries. Yet, Gigantism#In history, art and literature (T-H-L) does not list examples from the 20th century or later and there is no article called List of Gigantism media depictions (T-H-L) consisting of works from the 20th century or later.

Apparently, fans of fantasy fiction made during the 20th or 21st century are more obsessed with abnormally short characters than with abnormally tall characters.

[Zoloft]

Dwarfism#Art and media depictions (T-H-L) and List of Dwarfism media depictions (T-H-L) have a disproportionate number of examples from fantasy fiction, especially those from the 20th and 21st centuries. Yet, Gigantism#In history, art and literature (T-H-L) does not list examples from the 20th century or later and there is no article called List of Gigantism media depictions (T-H-L) consisting of works from the 20th century or later.

Apparently, fans of fantasy fiction made during the 20th or 21st century are more obsessed with abnormally short characters than with abnormally tall characters.

Apparently Andre the Giant doesn't have a posse on Wikipedia.

[Johnny Au]

Dwarfism#Art and media depictions (T-H-L) and List of Dwarfism media depictions (T-H-L) have a disproportionate number of examples from fantasy fiction, especially those from the 20th and 21st centuries. Yet, Gigantism#In history, art and literature (T-H-L) does not list examples from the 20th century or later and there is no article called List of Gigantism media depictions (T-H-L) consisting of works from the 20th century or later.

Apparently, fans of fantasy fiction made during the 20th or 21st century are more obsessed with abnormally short characters than with abnormally tall characters.

Apparently Andre the Giant doesn't have a posse on Wikipedia.

Apparently, there are more Wikipedians obsessed with fantasy fiction than in wrestling.

Both Dwarfism articles (the main one and the separate media depictions one) have quite a list of films, television shows, and books that feature abnormally short characters (and yes, they include those from the high fantasy genre), yet there are no examples from video games; all of the examples in the main article are quite a laundry list in prose, which can be considered unsourced cruft. Apparently, abnormally short characters don't seem to appear in video games (aside from those adapted from said films, television shows, and books). There is quite a list of films and television shows in those articles that are actually adapted from books (thereby inflating the count).

[mac]

Apparently Andre the Giant doesn't have a posse on Wikipedia.

FWIW:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas_the_Giant_Has_a_Posse_-_Group_Photo.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

[Vigilant]

Apparently Andre the Giant doesn't have a posse on Wikipedia.

FWIW:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas_the_Giant_Has_a_Posse_-_Group_Photo.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

Some of the saddest pictures on the planet.

[thekohser]

Apparently Andre the Giant doesn't have a posse on Wikipedia.

FWIW:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas_the_Giant_Has_a_Posse_-_Group_Photo.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

Some of the saddest pictures on the planet.

I didn't realize Kaldari had such scrawny arms.

[EricBarbour]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

And at least 4 of the people in this photo are now gone from the WMF.

[Vigilant]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

And at least 4 of the people in this photo are now gone from the WMF.

Give it time...

As new, competent developers come on board, they will whittle away the deadwood like maggots in a septic wound.

[Johnny Au]

Grammatical gender (T-H-L)

See the Artistic languages section. One is sourced and another is OR.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

There is a disturbingly large amount of fancruft on Wikipedia. Fictional elements tend to grow huge articles of original or secondary research about how the fictional elements fit together entirely within the fictional universes, with debates about whether, for example, Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal Death (T-H-L) is a "proper" Doctor Who episode and if so, how and where Joanna Lumley's representation fits into the fictional Doctor's fictional life story. A real encyclpaedia would address fictional elements as such, with articles describing how they either fit into the real world or giving some kind of critical appreciation of what those elements convey or represent to the reader or viewer, how they might be interpreted, and what this tells us about the authors or actors.It used to be the case that books by such experts (remember them) as Professor John Sutherland wrote articles about Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? as a jeu d'esprit, and Ronald Knox started off the whole "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" as a parody of the then-popular Higher Criticism. Such people knew perfectly well what they were doing, and it was a joke. Sadly now it's been mistaken for scholarship by people who either don't know or don't care about the difference –

Spellbound by Tlön's rigour, humanity has forgotten, and continues to forget, that it is the rigour of chess masters, not of angels

[Randy from Boise]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

And at least 4 of the people in this photo are now gone from the WMF.

Give it time...

As new, competent developers come on board, they will whittle away the deadwood like maggots in a septic wound.

How's that been working out for ya?

RfB

[Poetlister]

There is a disturbingly large amount of fancruft on Wikipedia.

This is a great discovery. I wonder why nobody has noticed that before.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

There is a disturbingly large amount of fancruft on Wikipedia.

This is a great discovery. I wonder why nobody has noticed that before.

Perhaps if you had read on beyond the first sentence you might have discovered something mildly more ineresting. Perhaps not. Who can say?

While we're discussing the Sybil Fawlty Award, there's the whole WP:PORNBIO (T-H-L) thing. The object of the notability guidelines was supposed to be whether there was enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write an encyclopaedic article about the subject. Instead, it's seen by Wikipedians as a prize, under the misapprehension that having an article in their so-called encyclopaedia is some kind of reward. (If you're a living person who cares about your reputation, it's a torment, not a benefit.) Of course pornographic performers are rewarded, for reasons sufficiently obvious, with free publicity for their products, but if you look at the typical pornbio articles they comprehensively fail any objective notion of notability at all – no real name, no date of birth, no education or personal life details, just a pseudonym and a gloating list of pornographic performances. This is not an encyclopaedia.

[Johnny Au]

There is a disturbingly large amount of fancruft on Wikipedia.

This is a great discovery. I wonder why nobody has noticed that before.

Wikipedia: TV Tropes with mainstream notability

[Rogol Domedonfors]

So what can one do with over-represented topics? One can hardly mock them by inserting hoax articles or material, because they are already jokes, and they are actually what the fans are interested in – they actually know this stuff better than any outsider. The second over-represented topic, from the earliest days of this thread, after fancruft, was BLPs of Wikimedians. I think that might be the way to go. Showing relatively insignficiant people what it's like to have their reputations at the tender mercies of a world full of cranks might be helpful, and getting edit wars going over issues like the various scandals in the chapters would brng an entire new source of information and possible helpers.

[Poetlister]

It is inevitable tha tthere will be gross imbalances on a site which is crowdsourced and has no overal leditorial board. Does it do much harm if some topics are covered in excessive detail?

Relatively serious subjects also get too much coverage. For example, there are tens of thousands of articles on individual asteroids.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It is inevitable tha tthere will be gross imbalances on a site which is crowdsourced and has no overal leditorial board. Does it do much harm if some topics are covered in excessive detail?

Only to the reputation of the alleged encyclopaedia.

[Johnny Au]

It is inevitable tha tthere will be gross imbalances on a site which is crowdsourced and has no overal leditorial board. Does it do much harm if some topics are covered in excessive detail?

Only to the reputation of the alleged encyclopaedia.

If the English Wikipedia has it that bad, take a look at the Cebuano Wikipedia. Millions upon millions of articles pertaining to extremely minor geographical features!

[Vigilant]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domas-the-Giant-has-a-Posse.png

And at least 4 of the people in this photo are now gone from the WMF.

Give it time...

As new, competent developers come on board, they will whittle away the deadwood like maggots in a septic wound.

How's that been working out for ya?

RfB

Strangely enough, you don't see as many projects that are completely FUBAR right out of the gates like the VisualEdsel, AutieFlow and MediaMangler/SUP4RDUP4RPROTECT.

Sort of like having civilian control of the military tends t prevent brush fire wars.

P.S. Please note the extreme thread necromancy from March 2015.

[Poetlister]

It is inevitable that there will be gross imbalances on a site which is crowdsourced and has no overall editorial board. Does it do much harm if some topics are covered in excessive detail?

Only to the reputation of the alleged encyclopaedia.

It does little damage to its reputation. Most people never notice, and those who do are probably mostly people who already have a very low opinion of it.

[arthur]

How do the imbalances manifest themselves, I wonder… As a child, selecting ten pages at random in a real encyclopaedia would yield ten articles that were fascinating, engaging, and educational. How does WP fare with random pages?

1. Abrau-Dyurso or Abrau-Durso (Russian: Абрау-Дюрсо) is a rural locality (a selo)
2. Morrisville Yard is a rail yard used by New Jersey Transit rail operations
3. Crossing Bridges is a 2013 Indian film directed by Sange Dorjee Thongdok.
4. Gabrielle "Gaby" Willis is a fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours
5. Oldies Are Now is an album by The Tokens, originally released in 1993
6. Thumb Lake, also known as Lake Louise by the "Lake Louise Camp" community, is a kettle lake located in Hudson Township
7. Dehkaran (Persian: ده كران‎‎, also Romanized as Dehkarān and Deh Karān; also known as Dehgarān)[1] is a village in Dowlatabad Rural District
8. Duncan John McCuaig (May 22, 1882 – July 20, 1960) was a farmer and political figure in Saskatchewan
9. Preah Ko (Khmer: ប្រាសាទព្រះគោ) (Khmer, The Sacred Bull) was the first temple to be built in the ancient and now defunct city of Hariharalaya
10. La Barre-de-Monts is a commune in the Vendée department in the Pays de la Loire region in western France.

Hmm… no porn, no sci-fi—is the random page feature censored in some way? In any case, what we do have is just collection of dull trivia.

[GlwnDwr]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... %27s_shoes

*sigh*
*unzips*

[Bezdomni]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... %27s_shoes

*sigh*
*unzips*

[Randy from Boise]

How do the imbalances manifest themselves, I wonder… As a child, selecting ten pages at random in a real encyclopaedia would yield ten articles that were fascinating, engaging, and educational. How does WP fare with random pages?

1. Abrau-Dyurso or Abrau-Durso (Russian: Абрау-Дюрсо) is a rural locality (a selo)
2. Morrisville Yard is a rail yard used by New Jersey Transit rail operations
3. Crossing Bridges is a 2013 Indian film directed by Sange Dorjee Thongdok.
4. Gabrielle "Gaby" Willis is a fictional character from the Australian soap opera Neighbours
5. Oldies Are Now is an album by The Tokens, originally released in 1993
6. Thumb Lake, also known as Lake Louise by the "Lake Louise Camp" community, is a kettle lake located in Hudson Township
7. Dehkaran (Persian: ده كران‎‎, also Romanized as Dehkarān and Deh Karān; also known as Dehgarān)[1] is a village in Dowlatabad Rural District
8. Duncan John McCuaig (May 22, 1882 – July 20, 1960) was a farmer and political figure in Saskatchewan
9. Preah Ko (Khmer: ប្រាសាទព្រះគោ) (Khmer, The Sacred Bull) was the first temple to be built in the ancient and now defunct city of Hariharalaya
10. La Barre-de-Monts is a commune in the Vendée department in the Pays de la Loire region in western France.

Hmm… no porn, no sci-fi—is the random page feature censored in some way? In any case, what we do have is just collection of dull trivia.

We know the database of information is stuffed full of gunk. But of course, the RANDOM ARTICLE button isn't the way that WP is used or meant to be used. You enter a query in the Google and links pop up. Hopefully the answer extracted is competent.

Here's my own recent experience. My current book project involves running down references to poetry running from the 16th century to the late 19th century. I've found WP to be extremely helpful in identifying publication dates and birth and death dates of poets. I'd grade its coverage of such material at B-plus or better. I've found no howling errors and am using it with confidence at this point for my very limited purposes. Coverage of Shakespeare is particularly good.

The other thing I've been hunting down are quotations from the King James Bible. In this, WP is of almost no use. For this King James Bible online < linkhttps://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/[/link] > gets me where I need to go.

RfB

[Poetlister]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... %27s_shoes

*sigh*
*unzips*

That's Commons, not Wikipedia. We all know that Commons is nuts. The interesting question is why this is a subcategory of Kirill_Lokshin but not of Shoes.

[thekohser]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... %27s_shoes

*sigh*
*unzips*

That's Commons, not Wikipedia. We all know that Commons is nuts. The interesting question is why this is a subcategory of Kirill_Lokshin but not of Shoes.

The resolution and focus on this particular image of "Lokshoes" is astounding:

[Poetlister]

What's the point of having a nice high resolution camera and then not making the effort to have a sharp image?

There is a helpful note that "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses." Of course, Kirill would have to prove that the photo is of him before he could assert any such rights.

[Randy from Boise]

What's the point of having a nice high resolution camera and then not making the effort to have a sharp image?

Diletante! Neophyte! Vulgarian!

These intentionally blurred and muddled images are great works of art.

RfB

P.S. What the fuck is this category, "Lokshin the Bureaucrat's Shoes," somebody's inside joke?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Rule 34. This is Commons, after all

[Poetlister]

Diletante! Neophyte! Vulgarian!

At least I know how to spell dilettante.

[Randy from Boise]

Diletante! Neophyte! Vulgarian!

At least I know how to spell dilettante.

There you go with your obsession about precision and clear focus again..... Hopeless, I say!

RfB

[Tippi Hadron]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... %27s_shoes


*sigh*
*unzips*

Damn, that's a good find, GlwnDwr. Keep them coming. :)

Some of these blurry, beautifully educational pics of Kirill's shoes were taken by plucky senior citizen, Jim Hayes aka Slowking4, of Washington, DC, a Pokémon fan and sock master with multiple bans who still manages to maintain a pesky presence on Andrew Lih's Wikipedia Weekly Fakebook group. Don't get me started on the latter. Like Lih (I'll post more about him milking the system later), Kirill, aka the President of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia DC chapter (ooh, fancy) seems to be quite the frequent flyer on the donors' dime.

This dramatically encyclopedic picture shows Kirill at this year's Wikimedia conference in Berlin (top right), alongside fellow jet-setters and forgettable-writers-cum-successful-self-promoters such as Rosie Double-Barrel (*power* bottom left) and Maria Sefidari (bottom right).



Here we have Kirill schmoozing it up with WMF figurehead Katherine Maher at that same Berlin conference in April.



But while there is a category for Rosie The Forgettable Writer at the Berlin conference, there's none for Kirill. Such modesty. How admirable.

Those Washingtonians could do with some more looking into. First of all, how did they manage to make Rosie the Self-Promoter a member of their Board of Directors? She lives in Nevada. Note that her current page on the Wikimedia DC site has her boasting about being "a member of “The Signpost’’ Editorial Board in the role of Personnel/Recruitment." Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Oh well, if it gets her travelling to important insiders-only events such as the recent WikiWomenCamp Conference that took place earlier this month in Mexico City ...

Then there's Robert Fernandez aka Gamaliel who lives in Florida. Another director of that Washington chapter. Did he grace the Berlin conference with his presence? Funny you should ask.



James Hare aka he of the misspent youth whose greatest achievement seems to have consisted of having been "the lead organizer for the Wikimania 2012 conference" was also in attendance, even though the picture showing him and Kirill milling about among the other wikifiddlerati seems to have gone from Commons. Like a few others documenting the travels and travails of the nerds who think nothing of curating spiteful content and terrible pictures of people with actual lives while being ever so precious about others commenting on their own achievements. Or lack thereof.

Heh. Looks like somebody knows his pop culture history. Nice one, Bez.

[Randy from Boise]

Jim Hayes aka Slowking4, of Washington, DC, a Pokémon fan and sock master with multiple bans who still manages to maintain a pesky presence on Andrew Lih's Wikipedia Weekly Fakebook group.

And a [redacted]. Don't forget to mention he's a [redacted]. One of the least pleasant Wikipedians I have ever had the misfortune of bumping into in the ether...

RfB



Moderator's note: Certain words in this post were redacted to maintain the site's "A-1" family-friendly rating.

[Poetlister]

But while there is a category for Rosie The Forgettable Writer at the Berlin conference, there's none for Kirill. Such modesty. How admirable.

He already has umpteen categories for his pictures. He wouldn't want to be overrepresented, would he.

The category for his shoes is now designated as "Wikimedia humor" by our good friend TDA, no less.