and unblocked.
Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- kołdry
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
- The Devil's Advocate
- Habitué
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
- Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
We have discussed this before, and I noted then that the main page gets a massive number of views every day. On June 22, when this entry appeared, it got 9 million views. While the vast majority get to Wikipedia from searches, people do go to the main page and browse, but there are a lot of links to check out so viewing traffic gets dispersed among many entries. Viewing traffic of specific pages doesn't even tell the whole story. That primarily gauges click-through-rate, rather than total viewing exposure as not everyone is going to click the link.EricBarbour wrote:I suspected that would happen. Far as I can tell, DYK is only closely watched by one type of person:
WP editors trying to get their bloody articles mentioned on DYK.
Please keep in mind, most of Wikipedia's actual consumers of information find their way to a WP article
via Google or other search engines, or WP's own search function. (Wales was once quoted that "60 to 70%' of
Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google.) Despite the page-view statistics, not many people look at the
front page closely -- except Wikipedians.
"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
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Interesting that Orlady would stick her face into that discussion. She might be the subject of a very detailed blog post on Wikipediocracy one day.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
I should add that the DYK of Wikipediocracy also led to Gregory Kohs (T-H-L) getting 57 page views that day, compared to its normal trend of 3 to 10 views per day.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.
I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."
I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."
Time for a new signature.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
There was no sourcing on the origins of Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) the last time I checked.dogbiscuit wrote:Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.
I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."
A reputable journalist would need at least two sources, at least one from Selina and at least one from here, giving the same account of the formation of Wikipediocracy, for presenting an unattributed NPOV history of the site's formation. Otherwise, attributions for accounts would be given.
NewYorkBrad (T-C-L) pulled "common knowledge" out of his ass, and stuck his vacuous "history" at the top of the body of the article. If this is his article writing, NYB should stick to anodyne ArbCom discussions, providing dispensations for prodigal administrators/bureaucrats who are getting criticized by their peers, and kvetching on my talk page about my response to Paulno94 (T-C-L)'s "get your knickers twisted".
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
You've got some busted links there for NYB and Paulno94.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:There was no sourcing on the origins of Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) the last time I checked.dogbiscuit wrote:Considering that the breakup of WR and the formation of this site is a very simple and easy story (Selina went barmy, moderators got fed up and quickly worked out it was easier to reform the site elsewhere) it is not surprising that Wikipedians should make such heavy weather of it.
I'd write it something like, "Due to ownership issues, the core moderator team and some other trusted individuals determined that the easiest course of action was to set up an alternative site."
A reputable journalist would need at least two sources, at least one from Selina and at least one from here, giving the same account of the formation of Wikipediocracy, for presenting an unattributed NPOV history of the site's formation. Otherwise, attributions for accounts would be given.
NewYorkBrad (T-C-L) pulled "common knowledge" out of his ass, and stuck his vacuous "history" at the top of the body of the article. If this is his article writing, NYB should stick to anodyne ArbCom discussions, providing dispensations for prodigal administrators/bureaucrats who are getting criticized by their peers, and kvetching on my talk page about my response to Paulno94 (T-C-L)'s "get your knickers twisted".
In article news, it looks like some people are trying for a third byte at the apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... omination)
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 4130
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
- Wikipedia User: Scott
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Talking of busted links, the auto-linker here apparently breaks on closing parentheses, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)
That's the second time recently that I've successfully watchlisted an article before it existed. People are so predictable.
That's the second time recently that I've successfully watchlisted an article before it existed. People are so predictable.
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)
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Thanks for the help.Hex wrote:Talking of busted links, the auto-linker here apparently breaks on closing parentheses, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (3rd nomination) (T-H-L)
That's the second time recently that I've successfully watchlisted an article before it existed. People are so predictable.
I can only laugh at myself for noting two broken links and then inserting one of my own.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Retired
- Posts: 4130
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
- Wikipedia User: Scott
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Life's no fun if we can't laugh at ourselves sometimes.Vigilant wrote:I can only laugh at myself for noting two broken links and then inserting one of my own.
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)
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Convenience link for next month.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summary
then begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)
Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this
I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?
- Zoloft
- Trustee
- Posts: 14081
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summarythen begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this
I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?
<!-- *not an actual system error* -->
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
What is the actual complaint? Haven't had time to read it fully yet, but in skimming the bloog there seems to be no speculation on real-life identity, so the "outing" stuff that got Cla68 in trouble regarding Russavia's blog entry isn't an issue.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Weller had an uncanny performance as Robocop (T-H-L), so perhaps he is again under the control of a mysterious directive. The existence of a WP "Directive Four"---prohibiting the blocking of an administrator or arbitrator---would explain a lot of behavior, which now appears to be cowardice or hypocrisy.Tarc wrote:What is the actual complaint? Haven't had time to read it fully yet, but in skimming the bloog there seems to be no speculation on real-life identity, so the "outing" stuff that got Cla68 in trouble regarding Russavia's blog entry isn't an issue.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.
This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.
This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Tarc, I'm curious about your comment here. Wasn't there already a community-wide discussion about this question in the context of the blog post about Russavia, and the community decided that having links to Wikipediocracy was allowed? What sort of larger discussion do you think is needed that hasn't already happened a few months ago?Tarc wrote:Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.
This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
IMO they simply decided that running straight to the spam blacklist was an abuse of process, I don't think the underlying issue was ever addressed. My point today was that this should be settled fo' realz one way or the other, so we don't have another admin doing another revert and protect the next time Barbour goes on a blog vendetta.Captain Occam wrote:Tarc, I'm curious about your comment here. Wasn't there already a community-wide discussion about this question in the context of the blog post about Russavia, and the community decided that having links to Wikipediocracy was allowed? What sort of larger discussion do you think is needed that hasn't already happened a few months ago?Tarc wrote:Nevermind, I see the outing at the bottom now.
This link removal will probably happen everytime a blog of this nature goes up, and sooner or later someone will try another badsites proposal.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
- DanMurphy
- Habitué
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
- Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
- Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
If someone is worth writing about, they're worth writing about thoroughly. So even though I still don't really get the point of this particular article, there is nothing wrong with saying "Mathsci" = Antony Wasserman, particularly since he's been adding his own personal work, under his own name, via the Mathsci handle to Wikipedia.
The insane, childlike reaction to this is once more instructive. How many links are in Wikipedia articles to "unreliable" sources that deliberately and falsely malign the article subjects? Thousands, at least. This link is just to a website that says, accurately, that A=B - but it involves one of the elect, so different rules apply.
The insane, childlike reaction to this is once more instructive. How many links are in Wikipedia articles to "unreliable" sources that deliberately and falsely malign the article subjects? Thousands, at least. This link is just to a website that says, accurately, that A=B - but it involves one of the elect, so different rules apply.
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
EricBarbour told me a few days ago that Cla68 wants to make an arbitration request about some of the issues covered by this blog post, as well as about some of the additional details that the blog post wasn't able to cover because of space constraints. If the place where you were thinking of having this discussion is ArbCom, you might want to first ask Cla68 about the request he was planning to make, in case you and he want to combine them. I imagine they'd cover a lot of the same territory.Tarc wrote:IMO they simply decided that running straight to the spam blacklist was an abuse of process, I don't think the underlying issue was ever addressed. My point today was that this should be settled fo' realz one way or the other, so we don't have another admin doing another revert and protect the next time Barbour goes on a blog vendetta.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
I look forward to adding the hivemind as a reference to a suitable article.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Vigilant wrote:I look forward to adding the hivemind as a reference to a suitable article.
It'll be a frosty afternoon in the devil's abode before that dickbag's blog ever graces the Wikipedia, I'll see to that one myself.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.
Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.
Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Think I'll go back to bed now.Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.
Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Wake up when its all over?EricBarbour wrote:Think I'll go back to bed now.Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.
Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Dougweller removed the protection, expressing surprise that no administrator had removed it, despite his having given his approval hours before.Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Administrator Dougweller (T-C-L) removed Wikipediocracy's url from the article (twice) and then locked the page, leaving this edit summarythen begging others to accept his good faith (at his talk page and at the article's talk page)Protected Wikipediocracy (T-H-L):
Violations of the biographies of living persons policy:
contact me privately if anyone wants to challenge this
([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expi)Weller was reminded of the community's rejection of WP:BadSites at his talk page.give me a little while and AGF please, I'm asking for advice on this
I've asked for advice. If this is an error I'll unprotect - this shouldn't take long. AGF not working?
I'm guessing that arbitrator Salvio_giuliano (T-C-L) will not come apologizing for indulging his authoritarian impulses (again). Salvio removed my request for administrative assistance, hatted the ongoing discussion (against close policy), and then threatened to block me if I restored the request. No wonder it took Weller himself to remove the protection template.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Why not both?Anroth wrote:Now at Arbitration, courtesy of Beeblebrox.
Well this should be HILAAARRRRIOUS. Oh wait, no it wont. It will be a gigantic clusterfuck.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- honeypot21
- Contributor
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:58 pm
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: I'm guessing that arbitrator Salvio_giuliano (T-C-L) will not come apologizing for indulging his authoritarian impulses (again). Salvio removed my request for administrative assistance, hatted the ongoing discussion (against close policy), and then threatened to block me if I restored the request. No wonder it took Weller himself to remove the protection template.
(again) ? is this type of action common with this user?
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
I see that although Dougweller's protection is removed, nobody's yet attempted to add back the link to Wikipediocracy in the article about it. Is anyone courageous enough to try that? The poll on the article talk page has already reached a consensus that the link should be there, so no admin who respects the community's decision-making process should be able to stop someone from re-adding it.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Ming wrote:Doing the dirty work (T-C-L)?
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green
"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton
"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
01:20, 3 July 2013 Mathsci (talk | contribs) . . (10,510 bytes) (-100) . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
They love you, Eric.EricBarbour wrote:01:20, 3 July 2013 Mathsci (talk | contribs) . . (10,510 bytes) (-100) . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)
Just wanted you to know...
that in those cases and situations where I have supported you, it's only been because you've been correct in your conclusions, and because the behavior you've pointed out is, in my own personal evaluation, damaging to this project. E. A. Barbour's speculation that I have done so because we are fellow Brits would have somewhat more validity were I actually British (American born, bred and resident) - but what can you expect from a fellow whose path to personal fulfillment lies in writing about collecting vacuum tubes?
BTW, if you've been sending out notices about the meetings, I haven't received one lately. I wouldn't want to miss out on ganging up on the next helpless victim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 9:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =562501526
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green
"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton
"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
What, he doesn't give any credit to Echigo mole?EricBarbour wrote:01:20, 3 July 2013 Mathsci (talk | contribs) . . (10,510 bytes) (-100) . . (disruptive sock edit - link to article by disruptive banned users Captain Occam and Eric Barbour violates WP:OUTING - please do not restore) (undo)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
The boy is losing his mind.
Makes me want to make several accounts and stick "Antony John Wassermann is MathSci" in subdirectories.
I wonder which one he is
Second from the left?
Makes me want to make several accounts and stick "Antony John Wassermann is MathSci" in subdirectories.
I wonder which one he is
Second from the left?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- The Devil's Advocate
- Habitué
- Posts: 1910
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
- Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
I don't feel comfortable with Mathsci getting blocked for removing a link containing personal information about him that isn't vital to the article. Although it is hardly rational for him to react this way when his worst enemies have known his identity for some time without it being a real problem for him and he's been more than happy to relay on-wiki where he plays organ, the street he lives on, and all other manner of personal details, it does concern him so he should be allowed a bit of irrationality on this point. Not to mention that, I mean, most of the people who supported reinstating the link on the talk page are hardly the most objective of people. Of course, my desire would be to say all that to the blocking admin directly on Mathsci's talk page, but that is not allowed there because of da rulz.
"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
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
I'd be inclined to agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that Mathsci's opponents have never been given any such allowance. After having a clean block log for six years, the first time TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked after provocation from Mathsci it was for a month, and the second time it was indef. Trevelyan isn't coming back (at least not anytime soon), Akuri isn't coming back, and Deltahedron isn't coming back, but Mathsci will be back tomorrow. Comparatively speaking, I think getting a 24-hour block for making five reverts in two hours is fairly lenient.The Devil's Advocate wrote:Although it is hardly rational for him to react this way when his worst enemies have known his identity for some time without it being a real problem for him and he's been more than happy to relay on-wiki where he plays organ, the street he lives on, and all other manner of personal details, it does concern him so he should be allowed a bit of irrationality on this point.
I also suspect he'll be unblocked before the 24 hours are up. Every other time he's been blocked, he's been able to find an admin willing to unblock him early.
- Zoloft
- Trustee
- Posts: 14081
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
- Wikipedia User: Stanistani
- Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
- Actual Name: William Burns
- Nom de plume: William Burns
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Vigilant wrote:The boy is losing his mind.
Makes me want to make several accounts and stick "Antony John Wassermann is MathSci" in subdirectories.
I wonder which one he is
Second from the left?
Marta Asaeda, Antony Wassermann, Vaughan Jones, Erik Christensen, Roberto Longo and Adrian Ocneanu (Los Angeles, 2004)
Source: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~shlyakht/ucla ... mages.html
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
from the book wiki:
If he's not careful, he's gonna be "notable" soon......
His name was inserted in December 2007 by a very obscure editor named Wurzel33. One of my candidates for a Mathsci sock.More irony: Wassermann is listed as the recipient of a Miller Research Fellowship, in 1986-88. He is even listed in the Wikipedia article "List of Miller Research Fellows (T-H-L)". Wassermann also won a Whitehead Prize (T-H-L) in 1990. Many of his fellow recipients are "notable" enough to have their own Wikipedia biographies -- but Wassermann does not have such a biography.
He is even quoted as an expert in the article Baum-Connes conjecture (T-H-L).
If he's not careful, he's gonna be "notable" soon......
Yup. The guy on the right is Adrian Ocneanu (T-H-L) -- an article mostly written by Mathsci, of course.Vigilant wrote:Second from the left?
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Less than two hours. Good call.Captain Occam wrote:I also suspect he'll be unblocked before the 24 hours are up. Every other time he's been blocked, he's been able to find an admin willing to unblock him early.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Eventually, though, the lead article here will be about someone else; or maybe won't be about any particular person at all. Does this mean that the link can stay in the Wikipedia article when there's no editor's name in the lead, and gets removed when there is; or does the mere possibility that the lead blog post might name an editor give cause to prevent ever including the link? Unless they keep hiding the discussions about these issues, the people who might care will always have the clue to come here when they want to look up someone's identity.The Devil's Advocate wrote:I don't feel comfortable with Mathsci getting blocked for removing a link containing personal information about him that isn't vital to the article.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
AGK wins an internet:
In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
If I ran Wikipedia, I'd say: treat wikipediocracy.com links the same way you treat google.com links. You can use Google links to "out" editors just as easily as you can use WO links. Heck, you don't even have to link to anything: just say "you should Google Qworty" or "you should Google Russavia" and that'll do it.
The "compromise" idea of allowing the link as "text" but making it non-clickable is patently ridiculous: most decent browsers will let you just highlight the text, right-click on it and choose "open link", and even the shittiest browsers will let you copy and paste into the address bar. All you're doing is mildly inconveniencing readers.
The problem is that it comes down to motivation: I may add a WO link to "build the encyclopedia" (i.e. in the Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) article's infobox) or I may add it to taunt somebody who's the current subject of a blog post. And Wikipedia's stunningly bad at sussing out motivations. Look at how long it took them to figure out what Russavia's game was, and that could not have been more obvious. (The Commoners still haven't figured it out.) AGF abounds to the point of absurdity. Even Kiefer.Wolfowitz said, at one point, that claiming to know somebody's motivations was a sign of a psychological disorder (or something like that). In the real world, of course, if somebody does something that raises an eyebrow, you ask them why they did it, and if they give you a bullshit answer (ahem) then you recognize they're trying to get one over on you and you treat them accordingly. But this approach seems alien to Wikipedia culture. You could upload a photo of yourself setting an effigy of your wiki-enemy on fire and the Wnts and Mattbucks would rationalize it away as being freely licensed art generously offered.
The "compromise" idea of allowing the link as "text" but making it non-clickable is patently ridiculous: most decent browsers will let you just highlight the text, right-click on it and choose "open link", and even the shittiest browsers will let you copy and paste into the address bar. All you're doing is mildly inconveniencing readers.
The problem is that it comes down to motivation: I may add a WO link to "build the encyclopedia" (i.e. in the Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) article's infobox) or I may add it to taunt somebody who's the current subject of a blog post. And Wikipedia's stunningly bad at sussing out motivations. Look at how long it took them to figure out what Russavia's game was, and that could not have been more obvious. (The Commoners still haven't figured it out.) AGF abounds to the point of absurdity. Even Kiefer.Wolfowitz said, at one point, that claiming to know somebody's motivations was a sign of a psychological disorder (or something like that). In the real world, of course, if somebody does something that raises an eyebrow, you ask them why they did it, and if they give you a bullshit answer (ahem) then you recognize they're trying to get one over on you and you treat them accordingly. But this approach seems alien to Wikipedia culture. You could upload a photo of yourself setting an effigy of your wiki-enemy on fire and the Wnts and Mattbucks would rationalize it away as being freely licensed art generously offered.
- DanMurphy
- Habitué
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
- Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
- Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
It's all so absurd. External "harrasment" site? "Blacklists?"
A search of Wikipedia's articles returns 15,500+ appearances of dailymail.co.uk.
Why don't they deal with that?
A search of Wikipedia's articles returns 15,500+ appearances of dailymail.co.uk.
Why don't they deal with that?
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Good shout, Dan! I've always kept an (evil) eye out for the Mail in particular. It will be an absolute pleasure going through that list and removing the tabloid guff from BLPs.DanMurphy wrote:It's all so absurd. External "harrasment" site? "Blacklists?"
A search of Wikipedia's articles returns 15,500+ appearances of dailymail.co.uk.
Why don't they deal with that?
I've made a start on Sinitta (T-H-L) (reducing the article considerably in the process.)
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Gregarious
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:25 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Beeblebrox (T-C-L) wrote an moronic request for arbitration, a year ago. Can somebody find it?Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time (emboldening added by KW). Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.
(I did not seem to link it from my election guide which stupidly recommended strategically voting for KWW (T-C-L), probably the worst candidate!)
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Was a rather dickish response, IMO.Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.
"The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Yes. Although the general thrust was absolutely correct, but in his position he should have phrased it differently. It must have been difficult enough to not put 'You twat' on the end, as that seems to be the way he was going.Tarc wrote:Was a rather dickish response, IMO.Ming wrote:AGK wins an internet:In a situation where this whole matter is best ignored and given minimal attention, Beeblebrox has decided to open a request for arbitration. Pardon me, Beeblebox, but that is the most stupid thing anybody has done on this project for quite a long time. Anyway, I agree with WTT that it should in any case not be necessary to link to WO (which would not be a reliable source for the vast majority of the encyclopedia). However, I also consider the community to be well aware of that fact, so the committee does not need to issue a finding or give any guidance on that question. The real problem is that the community's decision not to launch a witch-hunt on WO links does not seem to accord with Beeblebrox's wishes – which is unfortunate, but not a matter for the committee. And since I'm not sure what else we could possibly do, so I will decline.
- Captain Occam
- Gregarious
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
When you look at this whole situation, there's something basic that seems inconsistent about it. Here's the sequence of events:
1: Mathsci gets blocked for edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page.
2: The article gets protected as Mathsci's preferred version.
3: Mathsci gets unblocked, under the assumption that ArbCom will resolve the issue.
4: ArbCom then declines the case request, with the assumption that the issue should be resolved by the community. Meanwhile, although the community's desire on the article talk page remains clear, Mathsci has successfully thwarted it.
This is the one of situations for which ArbCom exists: where the community consensus is already clear, but due to one or more intractable editors, the community is unable to carry out that consensus. But in this case ArbCom is passing the buck back to the community, even though the community has already decided they can't handle this situation without ArbCom's intervention. Do the arbitrators really expect this exact same situation to not repeat itself when the article's protection expires?
1: Mathsci gets blocked for edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page.
2: The article gets protected as Mathsci's preferred version.
3: Mathsci gets unblocked, under the assumption that ArbCom will resolve the issue.
4: ArbCom then declines the case request, with the assumption that the issue should be resolved by the community. Meanwhile, although the community's desire on the article talk page remains clear, Mathsci has successfully thwarted it.
This is the one of situations for which ArbCom exists: where the community consensus is already clear, but due to one or more intractable editors, the community is unable to carry out that consensus. But in this case ArbCom is passing the buck back to the community, even though the community has already decided they can't handle this situation without ArbCom's intervention. Do the arbitrators really expect this exact same situation to not repeat itself when the article's protection expires?
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31776
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Wikipediocracy: The Wikipedia article
Someone needs to drop a note on the drive by admin's talk page and ask them to fix this.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.