"Jake The Sellout" wrote:I will say that pretty much their whole site has become infected with the idea that this site is "pro-Wikipedia," essentially because we allow pro-Wikipedia types (including admins and Arbcom members) to post here.
......
Most importantly though, if Mr. Crowsnest ever made any attempt to "focus" on systemic criticisms with any of his (four, I think?) accounts here, I never saw it, and I read everything.
Oh dear.
You just never see it coming do you?
I had already given a specific example (Gateway Pundit) in this very thread of where I had raised systemic issues. I couldn't definitely tell you what I was posting either side of it of course, because banned users don't have that tool available to them, but I'd be surprised if that was a rare outlier amidst a sea of alleged shitposting.
It was a great example, because of course I had never forgotten that your response to me starting that thread about an important systemic issue (albeit admittedly heavily couched in a topical example), was to suggest it never should have even been made.....
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 36#p215291
Not because it was a poor thread or I was talking nonsense or it was too inside baseball, but because it went against your personal politics and your desire for Wikipedia to be a full blown participant in left-wing post-truth disinformation campaigns.
And as I hope anyone with a brain can realise, my objection is not the fact you let Wikipedians post, it is what you let them get away with. That thread was a good example. The stonewalling, the misdirection, and when that failed to end the thread, the juvenile crap. You can see why so many of your posters love to call on Mommy to save the day. Because you did.
You let everyone know the Wikipediocracy House POV was that my thread was crap and Wikipedia doing what it did to Gateway Pundit was A-OK because after all, the only victims are crazy people anyways, right? And so once again, it was open season on me, I fought back, and you used that as your excuse to ban me. Just like the worst Wikipedia Administrators do.
Well, you all (y'all?) sure learned where that gets you, on January 6th. I told you that would happen, in part because Wikipedia was a microcosm of how Americans in general were approaching the problem of populism and your mass delusion that you excel as a country, and you scoffed. Because you're an arrogant ass. Don't worry, I've given up on waiting for my apology. You will note too, you fucking dickhead, the UK hasn't even come close to having a Trump moment. Not even close.
Yet thanks to your forum, and now I think about it, probably you specifically, the Daily Mail was conspicuously the first source to ever be banned by Wikipedia, having been labelled "fake news" by Lord Jimmy Wales of the Guardian Media Group. Before Breitbart. Before Russia Today. Before Fox (which is still considered reliable for non-politics!). You really are fucking lucky I hadn't connected these dots until today, and now I'm laughing that it was your pathetic attempt to try and paint me as a liar that led to it.
Why would I object to you letting even high ranking Wikipedians post? Sometimes it is the only way to show a person like you how wrong you are, both then and now...
28Bytes / Mason wrote:Interestingly, I think you're both right. KI is answering the question posed by the thread headline "Gateway Pundit victim of Wikipedia smear?" and his answer is essentially "no, it's not smeared, because it's described as 'publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes' and that's precisely what it does."
But the question is more subtle than that. Regardless of the fact that they are a fake news site, are they also known as one? Are the sources saying they are known as one sufficient for Wikipedia to say they are, in Wikipedia's editorial voice? Maybe, maybe not. That's the whole point of the "verifiability not truth" mantra. Even without considering the "citogenesis" and the political leanings of the editors involved, it's a legitimate issue for CN to raise.
Wikipedia policies require (in theory, at least) high sourcing standards before one can call a fake news site a fake news site in Wikipedia's voice. Were those standards met? That's the real question being posed, not whether GP is a junk site, which I don't see anyone disputing.
Ouch.
Call yourself a Wikipedia critic? An actual former Arbitrator just did a better job of summing up a major and ongoing systemic issue with WP than you did. And if I recall, he was on the forum well before you made the changes you thought were necessary to attract low rent scum like Beeblebrox and complete and total retards like Hemiauchnia. The former of which would never even acknowledge a post like that, lest his tendency to corruption be seen as a key driver of it, while the latter would not even have the first clue what to say to a post like that because even after being a Wikipedian for seven years he still doesn't even understand it's relevance.
You'll never prosper Jake, because I am smarter than you and I'm nastier than Vigilant.
He is content to lie there like a neutered dog. I fight back.
Moreover, the implication that these non-existent "systemic critiques" of his actually might have offended anyone here, and that this is why we had to ban him, is simply absurd.
This would be the point where you get Zoloft to tell people Dan Murphy is someone he doesn't respect, or that they did not see Dan Murphy call me a "lying alt-reich stooge".
You can't win Jake. People can see from that very thread who you respect and who you do not.
You stand with the Volunteer Marek's and Dan Murphy's of this world. You would rather have ten Mings gently licking your balls with their soft wet tongues, than stand toe to toe with one intelligent man who knows his stuff and has done his time and doesn't need or want to feel loved when his only purpose for being in a forum is to debate.
That's your people. That's your legacy. The weak. The disgusting. The neutered Vigilant.
People know who I am and they know I will be fair and reasonable at first. I will only be angry and vindictive if there is a good reason to do so. For your crimes against criticism and critics, there is every reason.
And yet even here, under extrem provocation, have I not been reasonable?
Have I not answered your charges with indisputable facts?
Have I not shown my working and given everyone a chance to dispute that which they think could be disputed?
DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATOR JUST ANSWER!
Federation scum.