How to Figure Out Which Bored is Best for Me?

[L00sr]

I cant which bored I would fit better in, here or Wikipediocracy?

Dont just trash talk WPO. Someone wanna tell me the good bad and ugly here?

[FlatSnout]

(I assume you mean board, not bored)

Why not attend both?

The primary differences between the two, as I see it, is that WPO is much more active, and that some Wikipedian Admins also visits WPO.
The downside of WPO is that the moderation is more whiney (including that posts may be deleted, even when far from bordering anything illegal).

[JuiceBeetle]

WPO is a bit more political. Those who have a wikipedia account are more careful about what they share. It also has more publicity. The public drama topics have up to a thousand viewers from wikipedia and elsewhere.
On Sucks you don't have to be that careful about what you write and to whom.

[L00sr]

On Sucks you don't have to be that careful about what you write and to whom.

I like that.

Why not attend both?

Thought they hate eachother?

[The End]

There are philosophical differences between the two boards with some personal skirmishes that flare from time-to-time. The Internet is big enough for more than one Wikipedia criticism site. Unless the Terms of Service on WPO has changed, there are no loyalty oaths required for either site.

[FlatSnout]

Why not attend both?

Thought they hate eachother?

I think using the word "they", is probably doing a generalisation too far, but: Does it really matter? - It's no like anyone is going to kill you for attending both, and there is no allegiance to be pledged.

[Abd]

Part of the Free Association theory that I worked on for years is the possible formation of many independent "meetings," and there can even be more than one "top level" meeting. Key is cross-membership, and if a group excludes members because they are part of a "competing" meeting, they cut themselves off from the community.

In successful Free Associations (they exist!), they don't do that, ever. Individual meetings can expel people on occasion, but the expelled can meet elsewhere, and communication -- through cross-membership -- remains possible. If a top-level meeting allows representation of all, even if not direct membership, there may be no need for a "competing" top-level meeting. There is a whole history and established tradition about all this, and it works.

https://wikitop.cc is intended as a top-level meeting for a general Wikipedia interest community. How it may function will not be visible until and unless there is no participation, and where the pedal meets the metal is where controversy arises. How is it handled? Wikipedia, out of its naivete, failed to develop genuine consensus process, but such is actually possible, even in the presence of very high controversy.

[The End]

Part of the Free Association theory that I worked on for years is the possible formation of many independent "meetings," and there can even be more than one "top level" meeting. Key is cross-membership, and if a group excludes members because they are part of a "competing" meeting, they cut themselves off from the community.

In successful Free Associations (they exist!), they don't do that, ever. Individual meetings can expel people on occasion, but the expelled can meet elsewhere, and communication -- through cross-membership -- remains possible. If a top-level meeting allows representation of all, even if not direct membership, there may be no need for a "competing" top-level meeting. There is a whole history and established tradition about all this, and it works.

https://wikitop.cc is intended as a top-level meeting for a general Wikipedia interest community. How it may function will not be visible until and unless there is no participation, and where the pedal meets the metal is where controversy arises. How is it handled? Wikipedia, out of its naivete, failed to develop genuine consensus process, but such is actually possible, even in the presence of very high controversy.

Selina on the old WR banned me for such thoughts. I called it "Many Islands" of Wikipedia criticism. She saw it as an attempt to destroy her forum. She ended up doing it herself.

[Abd]

Too true. The excluders exclude themselves, in the end. Preventing any mention of the Other Forum, if that happened, was a very bad sign. BadSites.