Last visit was: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:24 am
It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:24 am



 [ 34 posts ] 
Vandalism and editor decline 
Author Message
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2265
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Vandalism and editor decline
About 5 hours ago a template (the only one probably on my watchlist) was edited by an ip to say that "named person performs a particular sexual act." That inserted the claim in the over 200 articles that contain that template. It has undoubtedly been seen many times since.

It's clearly well past the time when a lot of things need to be, at minimum, permanently semi-protected (that is, making it impossible to edit them without a Wikipedia account). Yet they still resist -- in fact insist there is no real problem at all, since "vandalism" is quickly caught and corrected.

This is not a case involving any subtlety or requiring any expertise on the part of the reader to recognize it for what it is.


Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:27 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.


Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:41 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2265
Wikipedia User: Bali ultimate
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Six hours and 15 minutes, and reverted by an evil Wikipediocracy reader. Boo!


Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:46 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:53 pm
Trustee

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:43 pm
Posts: 1122
Wikipedia User: Cla68
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.


Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:02 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Cla68 wrote:
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.


Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:07 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Posts: 1159
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
I think he means that by letting these individual instances fester it eventually compels the powers that be to fix the underlying structural problems that allow them to occur. Personally, I don't ascribe to that type of attitude.

_________________

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."


- Noam Chomsky



Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:20 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3299
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


The article in question references a king (not Edward III) along with a date that is circa the Battle of Crecy. It is unclear whether it is a mix up with the king or the date. If I were to guess I'd say the date is wrong, but who knows without re-examining the source. Being that it got past FA review, and the editors involved are experienced, it could even be that the source was wrong, rather than the editors messing it up. However, it got past FA review without anyone questioning the anachronism, and remains there several years later. The QC of the pedia is sadly lacking even when it comes to the 'best of the best'.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:59 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
lilburne wrote:
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


The article in question references a king (not Edward III) along with a date that is circa the Battle of Crecy. It is unclear whether it is a mix up with the king or the date. If I were to guess I'd say the date is wrong, but who knows without re-examining the source. Being that it got past FA review, and the editors involved are experienced, it could even be that the source was wrong, rather than the editors messing it up. However, it got past FA review without anyone questioning the anachronism, and remains there several years later. The QC of the pedia is sadly lacking even when it comes to the 'best of the best'.

It is, and hardly likely to get any better. There's an obvious limit as to what 3000 editors can do, especially as about 600 of them are administrators and do very little in terms of content.


Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:47 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline


More vandalism by an IP editor. What a huge, huge surprise.

Time to implement Sign-In-To-Edit...

RfB


Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:34 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
Cla68 wrote:
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.


+1

Wikipedia will go away if and only if something comes along that is also free and better...

RfB


Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:39 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3299
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Randy from Boise wrote:
Malleus wrote:
Cla68 wrote:
Malleus wrote:

T'wasn't me. Lilburne (I think it was) has made repeated references to an article somewhere on Wiklipedia claiming that the wrong English king was in charge at the Battle of Crecy. For a while I didn't understand why he wouldn't just say which article it was, but I think I do now.


Yes, the reason not to correct mistakes or vandalism in Wikipedia (except BLPs) is that hopelessly narcissistic personalities or entities usually have to hit rock bottom before they can find enough self-reflection to improve. Failing that, they self-destruct.

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that.


+1

Wikipedia will go away if and only if something comes along that is also free and better...

RfB


*chortle* The site has has millions of articles to maintain, a number that far exceeds the capabilities of its regular editors, and the regular community has reached the xenophobia stage in its development. It is now a gated community that is well on the way to isolating itself from the real world.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:03 am
Regular

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:41 pm
Posts: 316
Wikipedia User: Roger Pearse
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.


Particularly when most of those 3000 editors are not actually contributors.

But where does that number come from? (interest)


Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:53 am WWW
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
roger_pearse wrote:
Malleus wrote:
You see lots of crazy headline numbers, but the truth is that the number of active Wikipedia editors is now hovering around the 3000 mark, and falling. There's a limit to what that number of editors can do, but no recognition by the powers that be of Wikipedia's fundamental problems that are driving editors away. And ultimately of course problems such as you describe will drive readers away as well.


Particularly when most of those 3000 editors are not actually contributors.

But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.


Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:37 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6188
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:38 pm WWW
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:44 am
Posts: 66
Location: Shenanigan City
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!


Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.


Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:15 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

An average of a little over three edits a day is an addiction? On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy, as your stats seem to suggest that you've made an average of 193 edits per month since you registered here. I agree with you about the articles on business though. My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression, and reinforces the ridiculous "crowd sourcing" hypothesis. It also puts the number of administrators into some kind of context. Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.


Last edited by Malleus on Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:16 pm
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
isaan wrote:
thekohser wrote:
I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!


Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.

No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.


Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:18 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am
Posts: 1003
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression...


Quite. Whenever someone cites number of registered editors, the first thing I wonder is "are you counting all the sockpuppets as separate editors?"


Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:01 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 3299
Wikipedia User: Nastytroll
Wikipedia Review Member: Lilburne
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.


Its only a slightly bigger ratio than than the 1:6 lobbyists to congress-critters that Google employees.

_________________
They have been inserting little memes in everybody's mind
So Google's shills can shriek there whenever they're inclined


Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:24 am
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 8412
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.

I have, and :yecch: :evilgrin:

Malleus wrote:
Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.

The deep irony of this situation is not lost on me. Even the Soviet gulags, at their peak, didn't have such a massive guard-to-inmate ratio. Everytime I see "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" again, I want to complain to the Better Business Bureau. But (of course) no one can do anything about it.

_________________
Image


Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:19 am WWW
Gregarious
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 am
Posts: 645
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
isaan wrote:
thekohser wrote:
I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!


Same goes for many of the science articles. Often, some of the most interesting parts of articles which are not just bland rehashes of better material found elsewhere were apparently written by graduate students who disappear immediately afterwards.

Sorry Malleus, you are way too mired in the dreck to have an independent opinion about "editors" to your web site.

No need for you to apologise, as I'm quite certain you've never seen my web site.

We get it, Malleus. Ma! Lice?, Malice Aforethought? (don't kid yourself), Ma Cunt? Ma Twat? Ma Mighty Yawn? Ma--Ladies, I don't ever get lucky with the likes of you, ever, so I might as well resort to the kind of foul language that references your sexay parts? You know, those lady parts that will forever be out of reach to the likes of me?

Eventually, without fail, you, Malleus, will manage to turn every thread into a reflection of the perceived glory of YOU, YOU, YOU and ONLY YOU and your achievements on WP.

I never thought I'd feel the need to set up an Ignore list on here, but, on the positive side, you and the genuinely nasty, manipulative and deluded piece of "art" that is Mathsick now have a room full of mirrors in which to worship each other's massive, pointless egos.

Empty vessels do make the most noise after all.


Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:32 am
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
You clearly don't get anything at all, so I fail to see why you try to pretend otherwise.


Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:16 am
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6188
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:59 am WWW
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?


Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:03 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
But where does that number come from? (interest)

The figure for number of editors comes from http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm. As of December 2012 there were 3210 editors who'd made more than 100 edits in the month.

I would call those closer to "addicts" than "editors". To chalk up 100 edits in a month, you have to be rather fixated on Wikipedia as an important hobby of yours.

If you look at articles about businesses, and you look at the contributor who added the most bytes of content, only about 40% of those contributors have EVER tallied more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, much less in a month!

I know it's hard for Wikipediots to fathom, but most people have never edited Wikipedia. Probably 95% of people in the United States have not made more than 5 edits ever to Wikipedia.

An average of a little over three edits a day is an addiction? On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy, as your stats seem to suggest that you've made an average of 193 edits per month since you registered here. I agree with you about the articles on business though. My point was quite simply that the headline number of almost 800,000 registered editors gives the wrong impression, and reinforces the ridiculous "crowd sourcing" hypothesis. It also puts the number of administrators into some kind of context. Wikipedia has a little over 600 active administrators policing a little over 3000 active users, a far higher ratio of police to the policed that any totalitarian state has ever had I'd suggest.


Touché!

Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

RfB


Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:09 am
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Posts: 5418
Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Malleus wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

I may not be an addict here, but I'm a glutton for punishment if that helps at all.
:dry:

_________________
♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪


Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:11 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Posts: 2300
Location: London, UK
Wikipedia User: Scott
Actual Name: Scott Martin
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Randy from Boise wrote:
Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

_________________
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 Jan 30, 2013 11:27 am WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6188
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Hex wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

Both of which are passive activities. Editing Wikipedia is far more active than merely absorbing entertainment content through your eyeballs and ears.


Malleus wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 pm WWW
Retired

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 854
Wikipedia User: Eric Corbett
Wikipedia Review Member: Malleus
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.

You distort the meaning of the word "addiction" beyond all credibility. I get it that you don't like anyone who contributes to Wikipedia without being paid for it, as that undermines your business model, now can we please move on?


Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:55 pm
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 2335
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
Hex wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Phrased differently, 100 edits in a month is basically two days writing. That probably qualifies as as an "important hobby," but not an "addiction"...

I'm pretty sure sports fans must spend more time than that, watching games and reading about their teams in the newspaper or wherever.

Both of which are passive activities. Editing Wikipedia is far more active than merely absorbing entertainment content through your eyeballs and ears.


Malleus wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Malleus wrote:
On that basis you must be addicted to Wikipediocracy...

I should hope so -- I own the flippin' domain name!

In what way are those two things related?

If I went to the trouble of buying a domain name and helping to establish a web community, doesn't it stand to reason that I should be actively involved in its day-to-day activity and content? Am I addicted? I would say "yes". I would feel dependency consequences, for example, if this site went down for more than a day or two. I'm able to admit that, easily. But I find it interesting how 100+ edits-per-month Wikipedians have such difficulty making a similar admission.


My dispute is that 100/mo. is some sort of magic "addiction" line, as you intimate.

RfB


Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:00 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6188
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
Randy from Boise wrote:
My dispute is that 100/mo. is some sort of magic "addiction" line, as you intimate.

RfB

Most of Wikipedia is "magic". How does Silver Seren become someone that Jimbo "trusts"?

Magic.

How does Jayen466 go from being a WikiLove barnstar recipient from the Sole Flounder, to "Please stay off my talk page, I've had enough of you"?

Magic.

Why do you have such a problem with me using a little of my own magic to define an addiction?



Malleus wrote:
You distort the meaning of the word "addiction" beyond all credibility. I get it that you don't like anyone who contributes to Wikipedia without being paid for it, as that undermines your business model, now can we please move on?

You have a woeful understanding of my "business model". My business model is to come into Comcast each weekday and earn a paycheck. I really don't give a crap whether there are 150,000 volunteer editors of Wikipedia, or 15 million. I also don't really give a crap whether there are 15 paid editors of Wikipedia, or 15,000.

There are numerous active volunteer contributors to Wikipedia whom I like.

So, now that I've set the record straight, I would say "yes", we can please move on.



P.S. For those who really want to know, I probably execute about 15 to 20 edits per month on Wikipedia. However, that's just a small portion of the time I spend reviewing Wikipedia, criticizing its Foundation management, performing investigative journalism about Wikipedia, authoring paid articles offline, etc.

P.P.S. If you guys are so un-addicted to Wikipedia, please take a 7 day break from it, beginning now. It shouldn't be a problem, right?

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:39 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 6188
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
thekohser wrote:
Most of Wikipedia is "magic". How does Silver Seren become someone that Jimbo "trusts"?

The magic continues. Now, Silver Seren is openly mocked by Jimbo.

_________________
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."


Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:51 pm WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Posts: 5418
Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Unread post Re: Vandalism and editor decline
It's worth quoting for the sheer nastiness:
Quote:
* * So you combined a number of personal attacks with insults with statements clearly showing that you are incredibly biased and should have nothing to do with WP:WPEW, does that about cover it? You've more or less shown that you have no place editing Wikipedia (or at least this topic area), because you are completely incapable of being a neutral editor within it. Silverseren C 2:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* He spoke the truth. Your efforts at helping with the corruption of Wikipedia are well noted by many.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 2:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Really, Jimbo? That's surprising, coming from you, considering i've contributed to people actually following your Bright Line rule. I've actually organized a process that enables better interaction between Wikipedia and companies in a manner that lessen the capabilities of groups like Wiki-PR. I've actually made an effort to make a difference, to make our coverage of such subjects more neutral and more comprehensive. Rather than let them fall into a derogatory mess. Silverseren C 3:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Or is it more that i'm the one that has pioneered the process? I'm the one that accomplished it, not you? That i've made you less involved and less important to Wikipedia overall because of it because you aren't necessary anymore as an intermediary between us and companies?Silverseren C  3:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
* Right, sure. Knock yourself out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 4:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

_________________
♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪


Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:52 pm
 [ 34 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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.