https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1187408201
No It isn't. Beeblebrox and company seem quite proud of the fact that, such is the erosion of minimal standards on Wikipedia post-Framgate, you don't need to worry where you say a thing like "SamX speaks before he thinks. Signed, Beeblebox" without supporting evidence. That is a literal aspersion only in the fantasy of the rules still existing but never being enforced. You can do that on both platforms the days, with complete confidence.WPO is, among other things, where people go to air grievances and post comments that would get them strung up by their heels for casting aspersions if they said them onwiki.
It helps if Beeblebrox is more powerful than SamX, but Beeblebrox isn't losing any sleep at the prospect of Sam saying such a thing on either platform either. Beeblebrox would only act if he sensed a threat. And a threat would only exist if someone else was saying it. Someone powerful enough not to need a place like Wikipediocracy to pound the matt. You never see Bishonen posting on there do you? And she's an absolutely vicious bitch. Forget aspersions, her stock in trade is literal threats.
Many? Try few, or increasingly, none.t's true that many of these grievances seem to be sour grapes from editors who were correctly sanctioned or otherwise censured for disruption, but enough of them have merit that I think it's worth reading.
As Wikipediocracy has been infiltrated by Wikipedia Administrators and people who want to be their friends, it has naturally become normal to see aggrieved users treated with the same contempt as they are on Wikipedia. Someone who gets blocked for tagging Jess Wade's unreferenced statements in her biographies of lesser known people as {citation needed}, is now laughed at. Just as they are laughed at on Wikipedia. Neither venue sees that as a bad block.
The criteria for having your case heard on Wikipedipcracy, is now identical to Wikipedia. There needs to be a reason for a Wikipedia Administrator to let it be heard. And Wikipedia being Wikipedia, that is rarely because an injustice has occurred or a serious breach of policy is afoot. They need an angle.
A specific reason to do their fucking jobs. Just like how Beeblebrox didn't help a guy recently out of the goodness of his heart. He was seeing the opportunity to break the "Code of Silence" of his high office that seems to be too inconvenient for him.
Is there? Really? There is one angry user who calls people all sorts, but it seems widely accepted his presence is something of an amusement to the current management. He is, to use a Wikipedia term, a legacy component.It's also true that there's plenty of name-calling and mudslinging,
They like to keep him around, neutered and tamed, as a reminder that the Old Ways are long gone. You'll struggle to see them saying anything that, under the right circumstances, is not also tolerated on Wikipedia. All the mud he slung in Framgate for example, was entirely redundant to that being seen on Wikipedia, slung by some of the most powerful people on Wikipedia.
Gone are the days when he was allowed to say truly hurtful things that would be beyond the pale on Wikipedia, but whose hurtfulness was grounded in their truth. You won't hear anyone on Wikipediocracy saying Cullen is a money grabbing scumbag whose anger issues mean there's no real reason for anyone to believe he wouldn't take a bribe under the right circumstances (and indeed is probably already paying known corrupt actors like Bbb23 for blocks that assist him in his profit motives).
Such as it was, their forum commentary about the revelation Cullen had been trading on his Admin status for a year, was as tame if indeed not wholly less angry than that seen on Wikipedia.
I mean I ask you, where is the mud in comments like this.....
Here we go again with the, "Buh, buh, buh, he's my friend..."
There is either equitable treatment seen to be meted out or there is not
....that cannot also be seen on Wikipedia's own discussion of that revelation?How many admin consultants would you need to pay for to own the article about your company?
If you're upset by that most mild of scurrilous commentary, and Cullen clearly was, then you aren't fit to be anywhere near the cesspit that is Wikipedia of 2023. Hence why Cullen seems to have decided he can only tolerate being there if he's getting paid. Not that Cullen even needs to be there to make this money (so he will naturally be less inclined to be a volunteer Administrator at all).
I wonder how maybe people realise that I'm not allowed to post that last sentence on Wikipediocracy, because I view the benefit of Wikipediocracy being independent being that I can use that as the starting point for a deeply hurtful comment piece about Cullen's character that opens people's eyes to his true nature (i.e., his anger issues) and therefore his rank deception in seeking to be a completely self certified "ethical Wikipedia consultant".
If all I can post on Wikipediocracy is to point out Cullen wouldn't be human if he didn't prefer making money to volunteering so his self-certifying statements should be seen in the light, why would I even bother? I can post that on Wikipedia. Some might say I already have done, and that might be why Cullen lost his shit with Martin Urbanec, proving the point. I couldn't possibly comment.
No, that one legacy component has been thoroughly de-fanged, his barbs now merely comedic, a window into his inner rage at being de-clawed. Poking fun at furries, for example. He could probably do that on Wikipedia. The violation would be OUTing, not being offensive.
Such as?but there's also useful meta-commentary and criticism of the kind that often isn't seen here because people are afraid to be critical of "power users" and long-established institutions in places where they are likely to be quickly dog-piled and shouted down.
Find me a single instance where a Wikipedia power user or institution is being torn down on Wikipediocracy but is not subject to near identical comment/criticism on Wikipedia. Perhaps minus a few inconsequential swears. It just doesn't happen any more.
The people who run Wikipediocracy are far too willing to fit in with the mobs these days. They hate what the Wikipedians hate, because they are Wikipedians. And Wikipedia has become, with absolutely no help from Wikipediocracy, a far more militant place than it ever was.
Because it already exists. There was no import. It went the other way. The previously high minded meta forum that was Wikipediocracy, was dragged down to the level of Wikipedian's ideas of what is and is not critical activity.Barring some dramatic (and in my opinion unlikely) changes in community norms I can't see that functionality being effectively imported onto Wikipedia.
Jesus fucking Christ, when was the last time you even saw someone on Wikipediocracy say that Wikipedia is just a bad idea, period. Or propose radical reforms like paid moderators to improve discourse or paid editors to improve content. One of many examples of how that legacy component has been made to bend the knee.
I'm glad to hear it. The founders of that site never intended it to be place where Wikipedians could come to feel good about themselves or serve their information needs. It is now, for the most part.It is very much a mixed bag, and separating the wheat from the chaff can be arduous and at times even demoralizing
As they will try to convince you themselves, they have changed. Beeblebrox is a perfect example of the red carpet rolled out these days. The idea that you can harass or even out him on their watch, is ludicrous. It s now seen as a crime against the forum. When Beeblebrox referred to Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy as "we", that's EXACTLY what he meant. Their goals are now totally aligned. So they approach critics the same way.I've heard it called "ANI without participation from the accused" which I don't disagree with and I've seen some pretty appalling stuff over there including outing and harassment
Harassment and OUTing is still seen, but as anyone can see, the perpetrators are Wikipedians, their targets being the perceived enemies of Wikipedia. They try to harass and out me all the time. Little old me, whose interests in Wikipedia criricism are no more evil than asking how and why it is a man like Beeblebrox can attain high office in Wikipedia given his clear character flaws, or how a person like Jess Wade can win medals for her efforts, despite routinely breaking serious policies like BLP and generally not being a model Wikipedian in any way.
I don't mind it. I cut my teeth in an earlier era of Wikipediocracy which was geared to helping outsiders and the media to understand the darker corners of Wikipedia. So I learnt the only effective way to criticise an anonymous cult who ignore their own rules when it suits, is to be anonymous and respect none of their rules. Not. One.
A stone cold killer.
Others went a different way. For their own reasons, they found different means.
None of them bother with Wikipediocracy anymore. See them as an embarrassment at best, traitors at worst.
And a fat lot of good of did too. The same vulnerabilities exist. I can see nobody on Wikipediocracy busting a gut to point that out, much less doing anything to make those who are responsible for such things feel unwelcome or obliged to answer legitimate questions.but we also have WPO and its regulars to thank for uncovering Qworty's machinations, among other things.
Seriously, what has been learned? Bearing in mind what reliable sources have said about it....
To take some recent topical examples, did anyone on Wikipedia look into why Elon Musk's biographyThe Qworty case reveals the Achilles' heel of the Wikipedia project. Anyone possessing enough time and resources, and who is obsessed enough, can post information on the site that is false, misleading, or extremely biased."
has a clear and identifiable babysitter? And did they do anything in response to learning a very experienced Wikipedian is routinely making volatile edit summaries in the Tommy Robinson biography? Did they fuck. Did Wikipediocracy light those things up as Qwerty relevant red flags? Did they FUCK. You can only find that here, a genuinely independent platform.
Wikipediocracy likes the fact Wikipedia is so easily edited by people who hate Musk and Robinson to in their eyes, put a hand on the scales or being emotion where there should be detachment. Because Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia now share the same goals. Because they are the same communities. Big brother, little brother.
With Wikipediocracy's help, the concept of Wikipedia needing to have article stewards, given wide leeway to insult occasional visitors and OWN articles, is baked in now. How does that happen? Because turbo-morons like Ritchie333 are representative of the brains trust that is Wikipediocracy now. A man who wouldn't be able to explain to you the first principles of Wikipedia's open model and neutrality policy if you gave him a million years.
The fact morons like Richie are not just highly trusted Wikipedia Administrators they have a big hand in selecting them too, should be of HUGE interest to the journalists that wrote about the Qworty scandal.
Good luck participating in Wikipediocracy at all these days if you think Ritchie is a moron. It is creditable that they do not like members insulting other members. Their house, their rules. It is not to their credit that they allow Ritchie to take the fifth when confronted with indisputable evidence he is a fucking moron.
Sigh.I do have quite a few problems with how it's run—namely, I think the admins over there are often far too willing to look the other way when harassment and trash-talking happens over there—but I also think it has its uses, which is why I browse it and occasionally comment
Jake, your crimes are clear. No trial necessary.
