There's a new Wikipedia forum at http://wikipediasucks.boards.net/, in case anyone is interested.

Thanks for the pointer. Serious digitally automated bureaucracy involved to actually make an account there, so bring your patience along.

Well, good luck to 'em. I won't sink them by joining.

Ah, so that's where EricBarbour has gone. I was wondering why he hasn't been around this forum lately.

Is there a story behind his (mostly) disappearing from Wikipediocracy, and quitting as one of its global moderators? Or are the reasons for that classified information?

Inside baseball stuff, and both sides not anxious to talk about it.

Eric is not blocked or banned and I miss him.

Confirm that, and +1.

Its interesting that he chooses that forum. Looks like Wikipedia review landed in that area as well. link

So far it appears to be just Eric, Hipcrime and Triptych talking to each other.

I know what happened when I tried to join another Wikipedia criticism forum. I was nearly torn apart as a member of the "Kohs-piracy" or whatever term was used at the time.



Honestly, if I ever decide to leave this place, I'm just going to put up a blog about Wikipedia criticism and update it whenever I damn please like Strelnikov did.

Edit: I registered there. Why the heck not?

It was discussed some time ago, starting here: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=152818#p152818

Wikipedia Sucks – And So do its Critics
Interesting

As I understand it, they are angry with Wikipediocracy for allowing in Wikipedia admin-stooges like Dennis Brown and New York Brad. But NYB is one of these guys who says little, apparently on the grounds that he is least likely to make a fool of himself that way (generally a wise move, in my experience), and Dennis has shot himself in the foot here quite a few times already, especially in the claim that Wikipedia is too big a place for any general criticism to be valid. You could say that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were also too big to be criticized validly. True, they had a lot of good people working for them, being communities apparently based on heroic and noble ideals, and they were brilliantly successful for a short time, just like Wikipedia. However, communities can be and are held to account for egregious failures and they deserve to be identified with those failures until they do something real to fix the problem. Wikipedia is so disinclined to fix its problems that critics have to go somewhere else to voice their opinions.

I am almost tempted to try out Wikipedia Sucks but I already spend too much time on these themes and I am trying to gear down. Also, I think they want expert critics. The problem with expertise is that only a small group can understand it. I think Wikipediocracy is right to cast a broad net with a variety of forums for different levels of expertise.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, next time you could choose some things that aren't incredibly clichéd and tedious to make your comparisons with?

How about the Byzantine empire. Lots of protocols, and bizarre rituals. A central system disconnected from reality, minor flunkies puffing up their authority and making life difficult for the peasants. All fueled by bribery and corruption.

I'm going to offer up the Illuminati as my basis for comparison...somehow, they are at the root of this!

The US legislature might be a better comparison.

Touche'

So you finally found that damned apostrophe you should have used every one of the hundreds of times you said your instead of you're, and stuck it on the end of touché? Bravo!

They do good things more often than the WMF.

That's way more like it. Wikipedia's "governance" is a fine example of the modern use of the word "Byzantine".

Byzantine is pretty inoffensive and flatters you Wikipedians. There was no moral obligation to fix things in Byzantium. It was merely inefficient because the wrong people were in the driving seat. Byzantium was a creeping survivor – the Roman empire basically – whereas Wikipedia has been brilliantly successful in the early stages. The point of my analogy will be more emphatic if it collapses because it has squandered some of its best people, because it has exceeded its proper limits and if it finally shocks world opinion with something dreadful. I think that is more likely than not. So your Byzantine analogy is rather Byzantine, don’t you think?