lsanger wrote:Picasso always did suck. Sorry, but it’s true.
lsanger wrote:I notice almost 30 people liked the original comment but only one retweeted. People “know” you’re supposed to like this awful dreck and will be regarded as philistine if you don’t signal that you do.
His comment section is a cesspit of proud ignorance.Larry Sanger
@lsanger
Investment tip: consider investing in homeschooling companies.
Because of the Coronavirus, bunches of kids around the world are going to be homeschooled very soon, at least for a while. When they discover how much more they learn this way, they won't be going back.
1:21 PM · Mar 4, 2020
Thomas Brennan
@ThomasB57121856
Replying to
@lsanger
Good idea, but not because of corona virus, which is the common cold.
It only takes one whale to feed a villager.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:18 pmLarry clearly went full crackpot some time ago. The fact that he thinks now is a good time to ask for a couple hundred thousand dollars that people just have lying around is more than enough proof.
Guess what he thinks about coverage of his Donald Trump or abortion or religion or climate change.Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic “false balance,” which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.
Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.
Why should that be discussed in an article about Obama?the Hillary Clinton email server scandal
I TOLD him to keep on the tinfoil hat at all times as a signal blocker......... But did he listen? Noooooooooo.
You mean like, with a meat cleaver or an axe or something? It would explain the brain damage, but we'd see that in his avatar photo, wouldn't we?
Actually, the thread was brought back owing to his writing about the death of NPOV as exemplified in WP's coverage of The Great Satan Obama, the bad coverage of Duh Führer Trump, the love of abortion, the hatred of the One True Religion, and their support of the myth of global warming...Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:15 pmAs soon as I saw that this thread was active again I knew what we'd be talking about: Larry's a "plandemic" believer, big surprise.
Larry Sanger, May 21, 2020, 10:17 AM wrote:James, it is your opinion that Trump has said many “demonstrably false things.” Many others deny that you can demonstrate this.
It is of course far from difficult to find fault with Wikipedia. I'm sure that Larry knows that better than most people. I'm also sure that he won't accept responsibility for any of the faults.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 5:56 pmSanger is clearly a little unbalanced, but he does have a valid point in that Wikipedia "endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic 'false balance', which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy".
Blind pig. Acorn.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 5:56 pmSanger is clearly a little unbalanced, but he does have a valid point in that Wikipedia "endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic 'false balance', which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy".
The examples Larry gives, though, seem to make the opposite point Larry want to make.Vigilant wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 8:44 pmBlind pig. Acorn.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 5:56 pmSanger is clearly a little unbalanced, but he does have a valid point in that Wikipedia "endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic 'false balance', which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy".
Excellent observation.Mason wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:08 pmThe examples Larry gives, though, seem to make the opposite point Larry want to make.
Do you think Larry wants Wikipedia to say "There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism" (what a neutral, fact-based encyclopedia would say) in the lede, or "Some say that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, however, others have argued..." ("bankrupt canard of journalistic 'false balance'", as he puts it.)
Ditto global warming. Ditto young earth creationism. Larry is a "teach the controversy" guy through and through, pushing for a false balance between established science and discredited theories. His argument against "false balance" rings hollow to me.
I agree that not all of Sanger's examples are convincing, but some of the omissions from the Barack Obama article do seem significant. The IRS targeting scandal, the "Fast and Furious" scandal, and the seizure of phone records from Associated Press journalists aren't things that were only discussed by right-wing pundits. All of these scandals were covered by major news organizations such as Forbes, Reuters, and NPR, and each of the three also is the subject of its own Wikipedia article (here, here, and here), but none of these scandals are mentioned in the main Obama article. I recall the Obama article having mentioned these things back when he was president, but at some point after he left office someone decided to remove them.Mason wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 10:08 pmThe examples Larry gives, though, seem to make the opposite point Larry want to make.
Do you think Larry wants Wikipedia to say "There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism" (what a neutral, fact-based encyclopedia would say) in the lede, or "Some say that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, however, others have argued..." ("bankrupt canard of journalistic 'false balance'", as he puts it.)
Ditto global warming. Ditto young earth creationism. Larry is a "teach the controversy" guy through and through, pushing for a false balance between established science and discredited theories. His argument against "false balance" rings hollow to me.
The question is whether it's even possible for ArbCom to do something about such a fundamental problem with the way Wikipedia works. Still, their acknowledging the existence of the problem is an important step.DGG wrote:People deliberately or inadvertently confuse what is the actual general scientific view now with what it was 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, or think that scientific questions can be settled by finding whoever is the most impressive authority, or the more authoritative journal, or some contrived reason to reject a source that tells against one's position. People assume there is one clear scientific consensus when the situation is amorphous, or just the opposite. Saying that WP adopts a Scientific POV does not necessarily help much. The result of this is that in many controversial areas the NPOV/SPOV has a tendency to match the preconceptions of a majority of those WPedians who happen to be interested enough in the question to join the argument here.
[...]
And there's another aspect to it: the often successful attempts to delete articles on the proponents of fringe (and sometimes, even minority views). One example is climate change, with efforts to remove articles on notable scientists often in other fields who have not accepted the scientific consensus in this one. (I don't want to judge, but it seems like attempts to conceal that there are a few genuine scientists who don't accept it, as well as the much larger number of cranks) Objections are typically raised to the sources, or to the number of publications, that would not be raised if their views had remained orthodox. This destroys the apparent NPOV of WP, because if a reference source lists only supporters of one side of a position but not its opponents, a reader coming here would assume we are biased.
ArbCom has very limited powers. It cannot make new policies, and its decisions on what the policies mean in individual cases don't always set precedents. It is not supposed to decide on issues of content, although inevitably these do crop up in many cases. Wikipedia governance is quite anarchic,because there is no body with much authority and certainly no editorial board. How anything can aspire to be a serious large-scale work of reference without an editorial board is not obvious.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 3:52 amThe question is whether it's even possible for ArbCom to do something about such a fundamental problem with the way Wikipedia works. Still, their acknowledging the existence of the problem is an important step.
Clearly it can't, but the WMF are unlikely ever to accept the responsibility of setting up an editorial board for fear of being held to account for Wikipedia's content, particularly if Trump's recent executive order rantings ever make it into legislation. Which is somewhat hypocritical given that what underpins the WMF's fundraising campaigns is Wikipedia's content.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 9:47 amArbCom has very limited powers. It cannot make new policies, and its decisions on what the policies mean in individual cases don't always set precedents. It is not supposed to decide on issues of content, although inevitably these do crop up in many cases. Wikipedia governance is quite anarchic,because there is no body with much authority and certainly no editorial board. How anything can aspire to be a serious large-scale work of reference without an editorial board is not obvious.Captain Occam wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 3:52 amThe question is whether it's even possible for ArbCom to do something about such a fundamental problem with the way Wikipedia works. Still, their acknowledging the existence of the problem is an important step.
Yes, all the funds raised go to the WMF of course. Very little goes to the people who provide the content, and then only a tiny fraction of them. There was a mediation service at one point, but it didn't work. Firstly, there were few if any trained mediators. Secondly, there was no way to compel people to accept mediation.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 6:40 pmClearly it can't, but the WMF are unlikely ever to accept the responsibility of setting up an editorial board for fear of being held to account for Wikipedia's content, particularly if Trump's recent executive order rantings ever make it into legislation. Which is somewhat hypocritical given that what underpins the WMF's fundraising campaigns is Wikipedia's content.
As for ArbCom, it has always been in reality a disciplinary body, absolutely nothing to do with arbitration.
If section 230 gets repealed, which seems reasonably likely, I think the WMF would have to set up some sort of oversight of the site's contents. I'm aware of a lot of cases where the Wikipedia community has refused to uphold BLP policy in articles about living people, including in cases where the material in these articles has the potential to harm people in real life. As I understand it, this change to the law would mean that the WMF finally is legally liable for these situations, so if they don't do anything they are inevitably going to face a lot of lawsuits from BLP subjects.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 6:40 pmClearly it can't, but the WMF are unlikely ever to accept the responsibility of setting up an editorial board for fear of being held to account for Wikipedia's content, particularly if Trump's recent executive order rantings ever make it into legislation. Which is somewhat hypocritical given that what underpins the WMF's fundraising campaigns is Wikipedia's content.
Yes, there's a WMF Legal (T-C-L) account. It's only ever made five edits and has no powers other than being a confirmed user, but of course that's easily changed. However, there could be loads of fun if people object to the account being made an admin out of process, or deleting articles out of process. It could make the Fram case look trivial.
I think the WMF would probably find itself having to set up independent legal entities for the major language Wikipedias and abandoning all the others.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 10:33 amHow coud the WMF adequately supervise something the size of Wikipedia? They scarcely have the scale of resources that Twitter and Facebook enjoy. And would they be equally responsible for all the foreign language sites?
It's not difficult. As you say, set up independent bodies controlling each site, and then ensure that these bodies pay large sums to the WMF in licence fees for use of the name and logo, or support services.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 7:11 pmWhatever happens though, it seems to me that the way the WMF currently tries to keep Wikipedia at arm's length and yet profit from it will not be sustainable for much longer.
And then he retweets a video from a Qanon account of a guy saying that he is paid by George Soros to protest. It would be funny if people weren't gullible enough to take it seriously.Larry Sanger wrote:Help me out with links: what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros?
Boogaloo Bois are a domestic terror wannabe group.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 9:18 pmSanger is now retweeting posts from "Patriot Boogaloo Voice". I thought retweeting Jack Posobiec (T-H-L) was bad enough. Plus this:And then he retweets a video from a Qanon account of a guy saying that he is paid by George Soros to protest. It would be funny if people weren't gullible enough to take it seriously.Larry Sanger wrote:Help me out with links: what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros?
Yes, George Soros, as the current chairman of the Learned Elders of Zion, is the number one bogeyman of right-wingers all over the place. He has given money to many left-wing causes in the U.S. and elsewhere, but that's not quite the same as saying he's single-handedly behind all the riots in the U.S.Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 9:18 pmSanger is now retweeting posts from "Patriot Boogaloo Voice". I thought retweeting Jack Posobiec (T-H-L) was bad enough. Plus this:And then he retweets a video from a Qanon account of a guy saying that he is paid by George Soros to protest. It would be funny if people weren't gullible enough to take it seriously.Larry Sanger wrote:Help me out with links: what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros?
I'm not saying it was planned but what if it was planned? Don't circulate unsubstantiated rumors like this one about how it was planned. And I'm not saying it's fake but look at this video which proves that it's fake. He's gone full Alex Jones on this one.Larry Sanger
@lsanger
·
5h
14/ Now look. I don't know what all this means. Maybe it's just a weird series of strange events. Statistics dictates we will be confronted with bizarre coincidences from time to time.
But given all this stuff, should we not consider the possibility that this was all...planned?
Larry Sanger
@lsanger
·
5h
15/ I'm not saying it was planned. "It was a conspiracy" lacks the detail necessary to explain all the weirdness of this case. You can't really justifiably call it a conspiracy until you *do* have some sort of explanation, with each part of your case having independent support.
Larry Sanger
@lsanger
·
5h
16/ Please don’t circulate unsubstantiated rumors. That said, I am interested in expanding this thread with any other weird facts connected to this case.
Here’s one: we went from one massive weeks-long news event (remember Covid-19?) to another without skipping a beat.
Larry Sanger
@lsanger
·
3h
17/ Update: another camera angle showing a crowd of officers huddled around Floyd, and it’s unclear where the people who shot the original sidewalk video are supposed to be. Just odd.
