Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1265 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by Bbb23sucks » Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:18 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:23 am
More than 2 months since the last update--no new blog entries, same old shit on the forum.

The Jimboland section is nearly dead. They said nothing about him having admin rights pulled from the Bradv business. But there was this thing about a "fawning" interview with Wales The Glorious. They always fawn over him, because he won't talk to anyone but people who kiss his ass. Just another idiot YouTuber this time.....the comments on YT are quite funny, totally without any clue, and I suspect many of them were posted by paid sockupppets.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 17&t=12905

Bradv was put in a different section. You see Ivan, Beeblebrox is giant sucker, yes? Jimmy is not the only idiot on the wiki-boat. But Wikidickiocracy goes off on a tangent and starts chasing assorted socks and accusing them of paid editing. Lol.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... =8&t=12924

YES, BILLY. BLOG POST TIME. GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND DO SOMETHING.
Wikipediocracy sucks, but I got to admit that this was pretty funny:
Vigilant wrote: Jimmy is turning into Trump.
Btw, they apparently have a thread on me!.. and it immediately turned into accusations of sockpuppetry and yelling STUPID!!! at each other. :lol:

I love how the commenters seem to think that Jimbo wrote large amounts of content himself, or paid for it with his own money. No, he didn't, he got fame of the backs of unknown volunteers like Kumioko.

Editing on Wikipedia is this conversation, but online and more stupid.
30f9a1f1822fa5e90edf6f0f622f545f.jpg
ThE fReE eNcYlOpEdIa AnYoNe CaN eDiT!!!!11!1!!1
30f9a1f1822fa5e90edf6f0f622f545f.jpg (66.09 KiB) Viewed 844 times
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Email: wikipediasucks@disroot.org

Petition to ban Bbb23Wikipedia AlternativeDonate to help French strikers

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4492
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 1112 times
Been thanked: 1803 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by ericbarbour » Fri Apr 21, 2023 7:36 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:18 am
Btw, they apparently have a thread on me!.. and it immediately turned into accusations of sockpuppetry and yelling STUPID!!! at each other. :lol:
Now THAT is FUNNY. And makes them look even more pathetic than ever. Doesn't happen often enough.

SkepticalHistorian
Sucks Fan
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 4:00 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by SkepticalHistorian » Sun Apr 23, 2023 2:52 am

Who are the top ten “Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing”?
“Too embarrassing” for the naive, malicious bigots who write that shit!

User avatar
badmachine
Sucker
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 am
Has thanked: 527 times
Been thanked: 260 times
Contact:

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by badmachine » Sun Apr 23, 2023 4:11 am

1. Fae
2. JurgenNL and TBloemink and Trijnstel
3. Kalliope Tsourporodou(?) and Rachel DiCerbo
4. Ryulong
5. Demiurge1000
6. Dcoetzee
7. Gorilla warfare and Fluffernutter and Keyes
8. Seedfeeder
9. Fasttimes68
10. Eloquence

edited

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4492
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 1112 times
Been thanked: 1803 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Apr 24, 2023 4:58 am

"Top Ten" is difficult, because I could easily make a list of 300 WP users who fully belong in there. Some are still grinding today, some were permab&, and some literally died. A large number gave up and quit in disgust, esp. between 2010-2013.

Plus Ryulong was such a total screaming asshole (for too many years) I'd rank him higher. But ultimately David Gerard deserves the #1 slot. Even though we rarely hear about him anymore, he was clearly one of the worst manipulators in the entire history--mainly because Jimbo listened to his stupid ideas/massive ego.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by wexter » Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:58 pm

Top ten worst Wikipedia participants

-Jessica Wade - Poster Child for Driving a narrative - rationalization is that if "most obscure popular-media figures" can have Wikipedia articles then she has to champion adding obscure women scientists. What she does is illustrative in that anyone can drive a narrative on the platform.
Jessica Wade, a physical chemist at Imperial College London, UK, who created both Phelps’ and Tuttle’s page, says out of the 600 articles she has written so far about female, black, minority ethnic or LGBTQ+ scientists, six have been deleted as they weren’t deemed notable. But almost every single one is being scrutinized – particularly those on ethnic minority women, Wade says.

When you make a page and it is disputed for deletion, it is not only annoying because your work is being deleted,’ she says. ‘It’s also incredibly intrusive and degrading to have someone discuss whether someone’s notable enough to be on Wikipedia

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/fem ... 64.article
-Neelix - Poster Child for Inserting Nonsense into Articles - the point is anyone can insert nonsense into Wikipedia on an industrial scale.
For a platform wherein unpaid users produce the lion’s share of content, Wikipedia rarely receives the same kind of criticism for the divisiveness, misinformation and moderation issues that plague Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. ...

he’s ranked 10th on the list of Wikipedians by number of articles created,

created thousands upon thousands of new redirects, each one a chaotic, if not offensive, permutation of the word “tits” and “boobs.” For example, he created redirects for “tittypumper,” “tittypumpers,” “tit pump,” “pump titties,” “pumping boobies” and hundreds more for “breast pump.” In fact, for seemingly every Wikipedia article related to breasts, he did something similar.

At first, given how many redirects had been created and how nonsensical and immature they were, administrators assumed his account must have been hacked. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/boo ... itty-trial
-Jimbo Wales - Creating a social network built on the foundation of a failed porn site that now dominates search (spreading ignorance) without rules or governance.
Hence the references to Fram’s ban as causing a “constitutional crisis” and this comment from Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales: “This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.”
Avoiding a "Constitutional crisis" was the term used to exculpate Wales from his bad behavior towards editor Bradv (where the rules are whatever I say they are and they don't apply to me but do apply to you you). Wikipedia is all he said she said - Jerry Springer Insanity - where the folks with the largest social capital on the site prevail. Trump card Wales..

-Piotrus - Another example of narrative framing through social capital; the lack of process and governance, and the fact that Wikipedia is totally random in content, with less than 1% of content being of encyclopedic quality

-"UWU" Anyone using "uwu" on the site.. it goes back to the porn roots of the website

-Sundar Pichai - harvesting revenue without being socially responsible enough to understand that quantity is no replacement for the quality of information provided. Pichai has done more damage to the quality of information (more evil) that Rodger Ailes did getting rid of the fairness doctrine.

(endless when you look at the details)
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4492
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 1112 times
Been thanked: 1803 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:49 pm

wexter wrote:
Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:58 pm
the lack of process and governance,
Provable but with some difficulty
and the fact that Wikipedia is totally random in content, with less than 1% of content being of encyclopedic quality

Not provable. If you would get a copy of the book wiki you would have FAR more evidence at hand. I don't buy this less-than-1% comment, having personally done substantial studies of WP content. My estimate is that more like 10-15% of it is "best" quality.

Where's YOUR study? Make tnoughtless statements like this and people WILL call you on it. People with more experience and insight than you seem to have. Being b& doesn't make you an expert.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: Anyone heard any "recent" WPO news?

Post by wexter » Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:33 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:49 pm
wexter wrote:
Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:58 pm
with less than 1% of content being of encyclopedic quality


Where's YOUR study?
Wikipedia's own statistics, definitions, and metrics
Currently, out of the 6,648,601 articles on Wikipedia, 37,666 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 177)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles
"They are well-written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information"
"an article that meets a core set of editorial standards"
It works out to .6% - that are certified to be accurate to a set of editorial standards that are written well enough to be read (the articles marked good are subject to degradation over time -- Even the "editorial standards" are nebulous and ill defined, perhaps the good nominated articles are swarmed by the army of zealots)
My estimate is that more like 10-15% of it is "best" quality.
--You could very well be correct that 15% might be considered "best quality"
--I am sure a greater number of articles then 15% are "correct" in part
--Perhaps Wikipedia would be OK enough; were the "information contained" evaluated contextually

The correct context is that;
--We are talking about an "entertainment platform," "a "social network," and "a revenue stream for Google via search/advertising"
--The world is calling an entertainment venue a participatory encyclopedia" run by a non-profit and dominating search, the combination of which, provides all sorts of PR cover.
--Wikipedia is OK enough as entertainment

vs a real encyclopedia that nobody is interested in - in the good old days encyclopedia volumes were entertainment in the bathroom for sure;
100K fact-checked, objective articles at your fingertips -- Trust Britannica Library as a reliable source with objective, fact-check, and unbiased content that is written by experts and vetted through rigorous editorial process.


We have a "mostly correct" encyclopedia versus a "mostly wrong" entertainment venue/social network that everyone "thinks" is an encyclopedia that (Thanks to Google being cheap/lazy monopoly) dominates search and cannot be avoided.
B& Banned as a qualification
The editors/administrators/arbitrators/founder/foundation employees are free to do whatever they want to do, they can have whoever they want on the platform (keep/ban), they can be whoever they happen to be, they can act poorly to each other, and it makes no difference to me. It is not personal....

--by trying to approach editing "with clean hands" found
-----few people are involved in any meaningful way
-----it is difficult to develop content on the platform (creating an article, improving an article, or even a minor grammar correction)
-----capricious and arbitrary governance of the platform
-----no internal controls whatsoever except he said/she said
-----toxic --most people will reach the conclusion that there is no upside

(the ones that don't realize there is only downside are retained)

Why I hate Wikipedia
-I want to have better information, of higher quality (the trend is to have folks repeating bad information from a smaller number of profit minded only sources).
-I want to be able to read things in "English" (that are well written and concise)
-Details may be presented (many of them) that lack organization, weighting, context, thinking
-Don't lie to me and everybody else (it is not an encyclopedia - not even close, narrative framing, conventions reliable sources etc, parroting)
-There is no opt-out from search
-It has a huge moat
-It is illustrative of the whole information landscape (degraded over my lifetime) and our oligarchy
-It was a great idea when it started, it could have been great, when it transitioned to a bad idea it was institutionalized

Why do you hate Wikipedia
Wikipedia - "Barely competent and paranoid. There’s a hell of a combination."

Post Reply