Stuck in the middle with you

[Renée Bagslint]

Google and Facebook should stop immediately with promoting Wikipedia en stop with multiply wiki shitheads nonsense, and give local competitors space. No WMF, no global monopolistic wiki movements anymore. They are as dangerous as the global heating, and there should be a global conference and a tribunal to discuss and to solve this probelm. That's the only solution I can figure out.

No doubt that would be in the best interests of hmanity as a whole. But Google and Facebook are companies that exist to make a profit for their owners. They will do what is in the best interests of their profits. So we need to understand why they think it is in their interests to promote Wikipedia, and, if your primary purpose is to disrupt or destroy Wikipedia, how it might be possible to persuade G&F that it is no longer in their interests to promote it. If the long-term interests of G&F involve things that are not in the best interests of humanity, you might also want to consider what, if anything, you can do to move the disruption upstream and disrupt the business models of Google and Facebook. Good luck!

[Graaf Statler]

Google and Facebook should stop immediately with promoting Wikipedia en stop with multiply wiki shitheads nonsense, and give local competitors space. No WMF, no global monopolistic wiki movements anymore. They are as dangerous as the global heating, and there should be a global conference and a tribunal to discuss and to solve this probelm. That's the only solution I can figure out.

No doubt that would be in the best interests of hmanity as a whole. But Google and Facebook are companies that exist to make a profit for their owners. They will do what is in the best interests of their profits. So we need to understand why they think it is in their interests to promote Wikipedia, and, if your primary purpose is to disrupt or destroy Wikipedia, how it might be possible to persuade G&F that it is no longer in their interests to promote it. If the long-term interests of G&F involve things that are not in the best interests of humanity, you might also want to consider what, if anything, you can do to move the disruption upstream and disrupt the business models of Google and Facebook. Good luck!

listen Renée, the intellectual world is as far buiten mijn belevingswereld (outside the world that I experience) as for you the world of concrete constructors.
I wrote a email to the University of Maastricht about this subject, because in my opinion Wikipedia doesn't belong in a in a university with a education program, and got a mail back from the head of there legal department they concider my mails as spam in the future. Zoloft has a copy.
When I said on Wikipedia, wikiquote, well my friends this is not to way to write a a reference book I was rewarded with a SanFanBan.

Renée, I am a Dutch stand builder with hardly any education, who first had to learn himself how to write English to complain about the way I was treated.
Do you really think I am the right person to save the world from the wiki plague? Because I don't think so. If the intellectual world is to lazy to solve there own problems, i don't consider it as my problem.

[Renée Bagslint]

If you don't feel able to do anything on your own, find a group and join in with it. Contribute your experiences, your insights, your analysis, your criticism; help them to formulate a plan and help to execute it. Or don't. Do whatever you think deserves your time and energy: the choice is yours.

[Graaf Statler]

If you don't feel able to do anything on your own, find a group and join in with it. Contribute your experiences, your insights, your analysis, your criticism; help them to formulate a plan and help to execute it. Or don't. Do whatever you think deserves your time and energy: the choice is yours.

Who would listen to me, my dear Renée. I am a almost 65 year old subcontractor with about three years of primary school and WMF and jimmy are a bunch of idiots. Who would listen to me, Renée? Nobody! They consider my mails as spam. WMF kicked me in a dirty way out. What can i do? Nothing!

[Graaf Statler]

But the interesting conclusion can and should be, lady's and gentleman, your beef shouldn't be with Wikipedia and WMF, but with Google and Facebook, a conclusion Tim drew earlier in this topic.
Stipas to lathos porta, as the Greeks say. You are knocking at the wrong door. The problem is not WMF, no, the problem is the lazy Google and Facebook, who want to make in a lazy and extreme irresponsible way a lot of money! Even in a partly illegal way in Europe!

[Renée Bagslint]

If you don't feel able to do anything on your own, find a group and join in with it. Contribute your experiences, your insights, your analysis, your criticism; help them to formulate a plan and help to execute it. Or don't. Do whatever you think deserves your time and energy: the choice is yours.

Who would listen to me, my dear Renée. I am a almost 65 year old subcontractor with about three years of primary school and WMF and jimmy are a bunch of idiots. Who would listen to me, Renée? Nobody! They consider my mails as spam. WMF kicked me in a dirty way out. What can i do? Nothing!

That's why collective action is more powerful. Find a forum with a blog that exists to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Help to inform their analysis, help to shape their plans, help to enact those plans.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedians are the personification of lazy searchers. Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign

Wikipedians can't win, can they?

[CrowsNest]

Wikipedians are the personification of lazy searchers. Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign

Wikipedians can't win, can they?

Sure they can. Had you not cut my post off at that precise point, the how would be obvious.

[Renée Bagslint]

Wikipedia is like plastic in the ocean. It's a depressing topic, with many good observations, but not one single solution.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedians are the personification of lazy searchers. Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign

Wikipedians can't win, can they?

Sure they can. Had you not cut my post off at that precise point, the how would be obvious.

Which Wikipedians do win, by your criteria?

[CrowsNest]

Wikipedians are the personification of lazy searchers. Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign

Wikipedians can't win, can they?

Sure they can. Had you not cut my post off at that precise point, the how would be obvious.

Which Wikipedians do win, by your criteria?

You couldn't just go back and read my post in full to find out? Here's the relevant part, Mr. Lazy Pants.

someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

If Wikipedia had a page which explicitly defined the core basic purpose of a Wikipedian, it would probably say something like this, no?

Out of interest, since you seem to be in the mood to defend them as a species, what's your best estimate of the number of Wikipedians who do this, and indeed do it well? Perhaps also produce a figure of how many you think are doing it in priority areas? I've never really put my kind to it beyond figuring it's a ridiculously small percentage in both cases.

[Poetlister]

Which Wikipedians do win, by your criteria?

You couldn't just go back and read my post in full to find out? Here's the relevant part, Mr. Lazy Pants.

someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

If Wikipedia had a page which explicitly defined the core basic purpose of a Wikipedian, it would probably say something like this, no?

Out of interest, since you seem to be in the mood to defend them as a species, what's your best estimate of the number of Wikipedians who do this, and indeed do it well? Perhaps also produce a figure of how many you think are doing it in priority areas? I've never really put my kind to it beyond figuring it's a ridiculously small percentage in both cases.

I am defending nobody. I asked a question, highlighted above for your convenience.

[CrowsNest]

Which Wikipedians do win, by your criteria?

You couldn't just go back and read my post in full to find out? Here's the relevant part, Mr. Lazy Pants.

someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

If Wikipedia had a page which explicitly defined the core basic purpose of a Wikipedian, it would probably say something like this, no?

Out of interest, since you seem to be in the mood to defend them as a species, what's your best estimate of the number of Wikipedians who do this, and indeed do it well? Perhaps also produce a figure of how many you think are doing it in priority areas? I've never really put my kind to it beyond figuring it's a ridiculously small percentage in both cases.

I am defending nobody. I asked a question, highlighted above for your convenience.

A question predicated on a false assumption that I was not open to the possibility that any Wikipedian can win, an assumption you could only establish by selectively quoting me. If the reason for these games was not to defend the Wikipedians, what was it?

[Poetlister]

If the reason for these games was not to defend the Wikipedians, what was it?

To see if you could tell whether any Wikipedians do meet your criteria. Do you know whether or not there are hundreds of such editors churning away? As nearly everyone here fully understands, I do not defend Wikipedians in general. However, we'll never do effective criticism by taking random potshots or condemning everyone by tarring them all with the same brush, while having no secure base to stand on.

[Zoloft]

If the reason for these games was not to defend the Wikipedians, what was it?

To see if you could tell whether any Wikipedians do meet your criteria. Do you know whether or not there are hundreds of such editors churning away? As nearly everyone here fully understands, I do not defend Wikipedians in general. However, we'll never do effective criticism by taking random potshots or condemning everyone by tarring them all with the same brush, while having no secure base to stand on.

Please note that Poetlister is known to us to be a statistician.

[CrowsNest]

If the reason for these games was not to defend the Wikipedians, what was it?

To see if you could tell whether any Wikipedians do meet your criteria.

And so I will ask again, why did you selectively quote me, removing the very part of my post which showed I suffer no such delusions or difficulties with rational thought.

[Poetlister]

This is getting rather off topic. However, what you said is

Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign, and means the article is the pet project of a fanboy or obsessive type, not someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

Is that a fair quote? Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive? If so, can you give a list of such articles? If not, how do you justify your sttement?

[CrowsNest]

This is getting rather off topic. However, what you said is

Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign, and means the article is the pet project of a fanboy or obsessive type, not someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

Is that a fair quote? Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive? If so, can you give a list of such articles? If not, how do you justify your sttement?

It's an accurate quote, but your questions don't follow from it.

Since you seem to have difficulty parsing what I wrote, even though it's right there in front of you, I'll give you the long version. I have seen articles where there is clear evidence that the writer never looked past the first page of results. I've also seen pages where the writer has gone further, but only for the purposes of scraping and dumping every last factoid in a manner no sane person would describe as encyclopedic. And in a minority of cases, I've seen pages where neither of these issues are present, and the writer has miraculously researched well, but been selective and sensible with how they use them.

Now, kindly don't waste my time or insult other people's intelligence by pretending like these statements are lies. Anyone who has spent any time looking at Wikipedia will have seen the same pattern. I don't particular care if you do or don't believe me, I'm not going to draw you up a list of examples for love nor money.

[Kingsindian]

If a Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything that cannot be found on the first page of Google results, then it is simply a summary of the "low-hanging fruit". A person who is interested enough in the subject to go further down in Google results (most people stop at the first two or three, let alone the second page), then it's good, but they usually don't need Wikipedia for that.

Wikipedia is a mixture of all kinds of articles of variable quality, depending on how much work has been done on them. Readers would be better served if there were more explicit, accurate and noticeable markers on how reliable and comprehensive the information is likely to be.

Also, "obsessive fanboys" are the ones who are likely to do more work on articles on obscure subjects, so be careful what you wish for.

[dogbiscuit]

If a Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything that cannot be found on the first page of Google results, then it is simply a summary of the "low-hanging fruit". A person who is interested enough in the subject to go further down in Google results (most people stop at the first two or three, let alone the second page), then it's good, but they usually don't need Wikipedia for that.

Wikipedia is a mixture of all kinds of articles of variable quality, depending on how much work has been done on them. Readers would be better served if there were more explicit, accurate and noticeable markers on how reliable and comprehensive the information is likely to be.

Also, "obsessive fanboys" are the ones who are likely to do more work on articles on obscure subjects, so be careful what you wish for.

I think it tells us something that this discussion is being driven by Google. There was a time when there was a presumption that a serious writer didn't even start with Google.

[Renée Bagslint]

I think it tells us something that this discussion is being driven by Google. There was a time when there was a presumption that a serious writer didn't even start with Google.

Indeed, it tells us that there are people who do not understand the difference between "knowledge" and "stuff I randomly saw on the internet".

[Poetlister]

This is getting rather off topic. However, what you said is

Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign, and means the article is the pet project of a fanboy or obsessive type, not someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

Is that a fair quote? Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive? If so, can you give a list of such articles? If not, how do you justify your statement?

It's an accurate quote, but your questions don't follow from it.

Since you seem to have difficulty parsing what I wrote, even though it's right there in front of you, I'll give you the long version. I have seen articles where there is clear evidence that the writer never looked past the first page of results. I've also seen pages where the writer has gone further, but only for the purposes of scraping and dumping every last factoid in a manner no sane person would describe as encyclopedic. And in a minority of cases, I've seen pages where neither of these issues are present, and the writer has miraculously researched well, but been selective and sensible with how they use them.

Now, kindly don't waste my time or insult other people's intelligence by pretending like these statements are lies. Anyone who has spent any time looking at Wikipedia will have seen the same pattern. I don't particular care if you do or don't believe me, I'm not going to draw you up a list of examples for love nor money.

OK, I'll have one more go at persuading you to answer my very straightforward questions and then give up.

"Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive?" OK, you claim that you can. Good.

"If so, can you give a list of such articles?" This will enable others here to assess whether your judgment is good. Is that not a reasonable request?

"If not, how do you justify your statement?"

[CrowsNest]

This is getting rather off topic. However, what you said is

Rarely do I find an article where the writer has bothered to look beyond the first page of Google results. If they have, it's usually a bad sign, and means the article is the pet project of a fanboy or obsessive type, not someone who can properly summarise and curate sources, leaving redundant or unnecessary stuff out.

Is that a fair quote? Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive? If so, can you give a list of such articles? If not, how do you justify your statement?

It's an accurate quote, but your questions don't follow from it.

Since you seem to have difficulty parsing what I wrote, even though it's right there in front of you, I'll give you the long version. I have seen articles where there is clear evidence that the writer never looked past the first page of results. I've also seen pages where the writer has gone further, but only for the purposes of scraping and dumping every last factoid in a manner no sane person would describe as encyclopedic. And in a minority of cases, I've seen pages where neither of these issues are present, and the writer has miraculously researched well, but been selective and sensible with how they use them.

Now, kindly don't waste my time or insult other people's intelligence by pretending like these statements are lies. Anyone who has spent any time looking at Wikipedia will have seen the same pattern. I don't particular care if you do or don't believe me, I'm not going to draw you up a list of examples for love nor money.

OK, I'll have one more go at persuading you to answer my very straightforward questions and then give up.

"Now, can you judge which articles are by Wikipedians who have looked beyond the first page yet are not fanboys or obsessive?" OK, you claim that you can. Good.

"If so, can you give a list of such articles?" This will enable others here to assess whether your judgment is good. Is that not a reasonable request?

"If not, how do you justify your statement?"

You can try as many times as you like, if you simply ask the same questions, you will get the same answers.

[CrowsNest]

If a Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything that cannot be found on the first page of Google results, then it is simply a summary of the "low-hanging fruit". A person who is interested enough in the subject to go further down in Google results (most people stop at the first two or three, let alone the second page), then it's good, but they usually don't need Wikipedia for that.

Wikipedia is a mixture of all kinds of articles of variable quality, depending on how much work has been done on them. Readers would be better served if there were more explicit, accurate and noticeable markers on how reliable and comprehensive the information is likely to be.

Also, "obsessive fanboys" are the ones who are likely to do more work on articles on obscure subjects, so be careful what you wish for.

I can't understand this comment at all. Wikipedia is explicit that its goals are not to merely contain the low hanging fruit but to be a comprehensive summary for each topic. And while they are not exactly open about it, truthfully, readers have all the information they need to be able to judge if an article isn't meeting that standard, at least in their eyes (it's Featured Article). I haven't even got a clue what the last sentence is meant to mean.

[BrillLyle]

If a Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything that cannot be found on the first page of Google results, then it is simply a summary of the "low-hanging fruit". A person who is interested enough in the subject to go further down in Google results (most people stop at the first two or three, let alone the second page), then it's good, but they usually don't need Wikipedia for that.

Wikipedia is a mixture of all kinds of articles of variable quality, depending on how much work has been done on them. Readers would be better served if there were more explicit, accurate and noticeable markers on how reliable and comprehensive the information is likely to be.

Also, "obsessive fanboys" are the ones who are likely to do more work on articles on obscure subjects, so be careful what you wish for.

What I sometimes run into and have frustration with are those articles that don't have electronically available resources, like for people who became popular pre-internet or cusp-internet. So the citations are not digitized. I have had citations deleted because they weren't available in an electronic form.

It's sort of a nightmare.

[dogbiscuit]

I haven't even got a clue what the last sentence is meant to mean.

It's extremely simple. The more in depth an article is, the more likely it is to be biased by the opinions of the person fixated on the topic, so comprehensiveness may not actually correlate with reliability.

[Renée Bagslint]

... I have had citations deleted because they weren't available in an electronic form...

This is of course explicitly against policy. Perhaps you were adding material unpopular with some of the higher-level game-players. Or perhaps you were dealing with complete yahoos. These two groups are far from disjoint, of course.

[BrillLyle]

... I have had citations deleted because they weren't available in an electronic form...

This is of course explicitly against policy. Perhaps you were adding material unpopular with some of the higher-level game-players. Or perhaps you were dealing with complete yahoos. These two groups are far from disjoint, of course.

It's the latter. But it takes just one yahoo digging their heels in the sand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann_ ... e_Dreaming

I am beyond upset about what is going on re: this page. This editor is the definition of a bad actor.

- Erika

And now he's threatening me with ANI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... y_2018_(2)

[CrowsNest]

I haven't even got a clue what the last sentence is meant to mean.

It's extremely simple. The more in depth an article is, the more likely it is to be biased by the opinions of the person fixated on the topic, so comprehensiveness may not actually correlate with reliability.

Not sure this is what he meant. I wasn't, after all, wishing for more fanboys to get involved in Wikipedia. But to address this point, the ideal scenario is of course team work - people with detailed knowledge working hand in hand with competent generalists is the best way to ensure an article is comprehensive, but otherwise compliant in all other respects.

[Renée Bagslint]

... I have had citations deleted because they weren't available in an electronic form...

This is of course explicitly against policy. Perhaps you were adding material unpopular with some of the higher-level game-players. Or perhaps you were dealing with complete yahoos. These two groups are far from disjoint, of course.

It's the latter. But it takes just one yahoo digging their heels in the sand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann_ ... e_Dreaming

I am beyond upset about what is going on re: this page. This editor is the definition of a bad actor.

- Erika

And now he's threatening me with ANI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... y_2018_(2)

It seems to be both. Ca2james (T-C-L) is visibly a bad hand sock puppet.

[dogbiscuit]

Not sure this is what he meant. I wasn't, after all, wishing for more fanboys to get involved in Wikipedia.

Then you will really have to update your cynicism quotient if you want to continue reading posts on this site.

[BrillLyle]

It seems to be both. Ca2james (T-C-L) is visibly a bad hand sock puppet.

How do you tell? What do I do about it? Is there anything I can do?

[Renée Bagslint]

Sporadic bouts of intensive editing on controversial topics and long periods of apparent inactivity, rather unlikely for an apparent addict. Much higher than average interest in internal wiki politics. Fourth ever edit is to a noticeboard.

What can you do -- I don't know.

[BrillLyle]

Sporadic bouts of intensive editing on controversial topics and long periods of apparent inactivity, rather unlikely for an apparent addict. Much higher than average interest in internal wiki politics. Fourth ever edit is to a noticeboard.

What can you do -- I don't know.

Okay. Thanks. This is very helpful.

The tag on the User page about Aspergers and Autism just had me rolling my eyes. I've had an editor use their Aspergers as an excuse of being rude. That drives me bananas.

This jerk is going to win here. I am exhausted trying to fight this type of deletionism and carving away at content. It's the worst part of editing.

Thanks again,

- Erika

[Poetlister]

You can try as many times as you like, if you simply ask the same questions, you will get the same answers.

That doesn't surprise me and I don't suppose it surprises many people here. We realised that you had no sensible defence.

[Textnyymi]

Unfortunately it's Google making the choice for you. I imagine they'll drop it when they have got what they want out of it -- whatever that might be.

More people are now readily connected to the Internet and can browse pages practically any time they wish to do it. They can decide whether what they find is good for them or not. Of course doing that on a smartphone poses more challenges than doing that in front of a computer screen. Alexa ranks have been fairly stable for years now, with Wikipedia coming up as the 33rd most visited website in 2005, but jumping up to 8th in 2006, and then it has been in 5th-6th place since 2010 or so.

There is also this trap: if a website looks well presented or cool then it must be reliable and such, and we know that a well presented site isn't necessarily filled with accurate information.

In a rational way, with Google and Wikipedia we can be sure that we will receive some data after a search input, nothing more. The quality of the outputs could be high or low, and who decides that?

[Renée Bagslint]

More people are now readily connected to the Internet and can browse pages practically any time they wish to do it. They can decide whether what they find is good for them or not.

How do they do that, exactly? Does laetrile cure cancer? The fourth Google hit for me on a search for laetrile says that it "is effective at getting rid of cancer cells". How do I decide whether that's good for me or not?

[CrowsNest]

You can try as many times as you like, if you simply ask the same questions, you will get the same answers.

That doesn't surprise me and I don't suppose it surprises many people here. We realised that you had no sensible defence.

Don't speak for anyone else unless you're certain they're prepared to stand with you. If they choose to disbelieve me, if they're so thick they need a list of examples to prove what any knowledgeable observer of Wikipedia would know, then let them identify themselves to me, so I can know who they are and remember their deficiencies in future. I could be a real dick here and apply the same standards of required proof before I accepted your claim that I am talking out of my ass, but I won't, because I know you would refuse to answer such a dumb request for the same reasons as I would, as well as the fact you probably already know you can't prove it. Unless you massage the figures of course.

[Renée Bagslint]

Speaking as "anyone else", I think we stopped caring about this little spat somewhere around the middle of page 2,

[Kingsindian]

I think it tells us something that this discussion is being driven by Google. There was a time when there was a presumption that a serious writer didn't even start with Google.

Indeed, it tells us that there are people who do not understand the difference between "knowledge" and "stuff I randomly saw on the internet".

The point, as I understood it, has little to do with knowledge per se. The way I think about it is the following. Wikipedia is just one of the sources in the world. It's free to use. Many people decry it because it ranks high in Google search results. If the standard of comparison is Google search results, then saying that (some Wikipedia articles) only summarize the first page of Google isn't much of a complaint. The second page of Google (and offline sources, for that matter) remain whether or not Wikipedia exists.

[Renée Bagslint]

I think it tells us something that this discussion is being driven by Google. There was a time when there was a presumption that a serious writer didn't even start with Google.

Indeed, it tells us that there are people who do not understand the difference between "knowledge" and "stuff I randomly saw on the internet".

The point, as I understood it, has little to do with knowledge per se. The way I think about it is the following. Wikipedia is just one of the sources in the world. It's free to use. Many people decry it because it ranks high in Google search results. If the standard of comparison is Google search results, then saying that (some Wikipedia articles) only summarize the first page of Google isn't much of a complaint. The second page of Google (and offline sources, for that matter) remain whether or not Wikipedia exists.

It's all, and always, about knowledge: at least for those of us who have worked hard to advance and propagate the sum of human knowledge, as opposed to the cargo cult Wikipedia version. I for one decry Wikipedia not because it's an alternative to Google, but because it claims to be an encyclopaedia -- that is, it pretends to be knowledge, when it so often is not. It presents itself as a reliable source of information when it admits that it is not. It damages education, research and the dissemination of genuine knowledge. Its damaging effect is the greater becauxe it ranks high on Google and is used by them to populate its infoboxes. If Wikipedia never rose above page 20 of Google search, it would be less damaging and much less important: conversely, if Encyclopedia Brittanica were the fourth-placed entry in every Google search, I wouldd be quite relaxed about it.

[CrowsNest]

I think it tells us something that this discussion is being driven by Google. There was a time when there was a presumption that a serious writer didn't even start with Google.

Indeed, it tells us that there are people who do not understand the difference between "knowledge" and "stuff I randomly saw on the internet".

The point, as I understood it, has little to do with knowledge per se. The way I think about it is the following. Wikipedia is just one of the sources in the world. It's free to use. Many people decry it because it ranks high in Google search results. If the standard of comparison is Google search results, then saying that (some Wikipedia articles) only summarize the first page of Google isn't much of a complaint. The second page of Google (and offline sources, for that matter) remain whether or not Wikipedia exists.

Your refusal to acknowledge what Wikipedia markets itself as, is odd to say the least. If you acknowledged what it claims to be, or aims to be, whether you agree with it or not, then you would understand why it is a very big complaint, and in no way ignorable simply because Wikipedia made the deliberate choice to be a free resource.

[Poetlister]

There's a good quote on the user page of checkuser NinjaRobotPirate (T-C-L).

I believe the best way to avoid bias is to edit articles about which one is apathetic (thus, 1980s death metal).

That sounds very plausible but how many editors would restrict themselves to articles which don't really interest them? The most likely people to do so are returning socks trying to hide their identity and build up their edit count to run for RfA.

[CrowsNest]

There's a good quote on the user page of checkuser NinjaRobotPirate (T-C-L).

I believe the best way to avoid bias is to edit articles about which one is apathetic (thus, 1980s death metal).

That sounds very plausible but how many editors would restrict themselves to articles which don't really interest them? The most likely people to do so are returning socks trying to hide their identity and build up their edit count to run for RfA.

100% of editors would follow this sage advice, if they wanted the rest of the world to really believe them when they say they're part of the Wikipedia movement for the benefit of readers. This is no different to how, if they really wanted to believe they're all about neutrality, they'd practice the art of writing for the enemy. These people are not encyclopedists, they're selfish and self-delusional fools and/or con-artists.

[Johnny Au]

Wikipedia does an extremely good job with popular media and transportation infrastructure.

For some other things, it's less than adequate.

[CrowsNest]

The OP is talking about the decline of the quality articles (example: Bruce Springsteen). You are talking about the decline in the rate of growth (example: of FAs). They are not the same thing.

It does though raise an interesting way of looking at the supposed best of Wikipedia.

1) How many FAs are there? How has this number increase or decline over time?
2) How many FAs no longer meet the criteria of that they were assessed against?
3) Is FA quality itself a reasonably constant measure of quality or has there been an improvement or decline in FAs over time.

FAs certainly would be a sample to assess for content rot. It would also be interesting to see if any have lost their status through being assessed for content rot, or is it once an FA, always an FA - I have no idea. Who manages existing FAs? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that). If Wikipedia was in rude health, one would expect an ever increasing number of FAs. If it is properly managed one would expect that there would be a steady flow of FAs that lost their status as the general public, unaware of the FA principle made miscellaneous changes, some of which would be damaging.

So if we can see some evidence that FAs are in decline, then it is easier to make an assumption about the state of Wikipedia as a whole.

I've just been reminded that the indexes found here.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles

.....would serve quite well as a quick method of establishing these figures where it really counts, in Wikipedia's most important topics. I see a lot of former FAs there, often outnumbering current ones. In one case, Technology Level 3, their entire stable of 9 has been delisted. Even at this high level, their distribution also confirms the known problems of systemic bias and people working alone obsessively on one area, disregarding even highly related articles if they don't float their boat.

Beware though, the icons are only updated manually.

[BrillLyle]

Sporadic bouts of intensive editing on controversial topics and long periods of apparent inactivity, rather unlikely for an apparent addict. Much higher than average interest in internal wiki politics. Fourth ever edit is to a noticeboard.

What can you do -- I don't know.

Okay. Thanks. This is very helpful.

This jerk is going to win here. I am exhausted trying to fight this type of deletionism and carving away at content. It's the worst part of editing.

Thanks again,

- Erika

And this situation has continued, at speed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ann_Powers

I talked with someone who is a friendly at WMF about this. He is going to use it as an example of harassment since that's pretty clear. Between the two bad actors, Ca2James and Rebbing, it has gotten very uncomfortable for me. Nightmare.

[CrowsNest]

In my professional opinion, you're going to be banned quite soon. I'm surprised they haven't come for you already. As they say in the films, when it happens, don't fight it, it will only make it worse on you.

[BrillLyle]

In my professional opinion, you're going to be banned quite soon. I'm surprised they haven't come for you already. As they say in the films, when it happens, don't fight it, it will only make it worse on you.

Yeah, I can feel it happening. I don't know what to do. What they are doing is so personal, so harassing. They fully don't appreciate how much content I am contributing.

This is really bad. I have other outreach work that will be jeopardized by this.

So I will stop fighting. Won't respond. They will win. And I have done nothing wrong but naively try to fix BLP pages. It's horseshit.

[Bezdomni]

I read through this again tonight. I see that this Ca2james (T-C-L) character has been involved in conflicts with LB, Montanabw, & Atsme, among others. To a naive eye, it certainly looks like there's a pattern here.

I also notice that they are reproaching you on your talk page for correcting "five" to "seven" in pre-existing text you deleted immediately afterwards as puffery.

As for the other character who has shown up to pour oil on the fire, I see that they are chummy with the colorist formerly known as TJW. When you start seeing such colorful signatures swarming around you, it's usually not a good sign.