https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 925#p34565
Look at Wikipediocracy today. Infrequent blog posts by anonymous cowards. A tiny user base who don't do anything remotely like exposing corruption. A core group whose productivity is an embarssment. Compare what I can do on a Sunday morning to an entire week's worth of their chitter chatter. Laziness. Couldn't give a fuck. Only post out of habit."March 2013" wrote:It's untrue, and even less true here on Wikipediocracy than it was on WR, but people should understand how and why that impression took hold. The original WR membership did consist of a number blocked WP users, and it's quite possible that they were a majority for the first 3 years or so. The WP admin in-group made a point of mentioning this (and to some extent, still does) at every available opportunity. The turning point was around 2008 or so.
And that turning point wasn't a fluke - it happened because people put in the effort. WR built a central core of members who were, and still are, capable of not only posting intelligent stuff about WP, but who could also sniff out corruption and expose it, sometimes even to the point of newsworthiness. That sort of thing tends to attract more people, along with the fact that we can discuss WP-related issues without the constant threat of some silly rule being selectively applied to shut us up. That includes WP defenders, many of whom have never been blocked at all.
There will always be a certain percentage of forum members here who join after being blocked for some (often bogus) offense or other, most of whom won't stick around long because they're not so interested in the larger picture. The Faithful will point to them and say we're still "mostly banned editors," but that group is the minority now and they have been for some time - though they're still (I hope) absolutely welcome here, assuming they're not race-haters or fascists or whatever.
As for me, I was never a WP editor in the first place, so I don't really count, I guess.
A core group proactively averse to the influx of newcomers drawn in by stuff like Nohonioe and Where Is Kate? Happy to set the long banned Vigilant on them to show them what their site principles are (OUTING of Wikipedia advanced rights holders on general principle), so they all leave in disgust. Keep it small. Keep the "#1" poster happy. Reward his long service, even though he is a massive reason journalists are now better served by Wikipedia's own internal newsletter.
Even though his only non-trivial effort in recent memory is pushing a conspiracy theory. A man so threatened by me, so scared of what it meant when you declined his request I be immediately shown the door, he cried and cried and cried, until you found some tiny sliver of justification to ban me. Gave the baby his bottle. Is he happy now? I bet he is. It's nice and quiet over there now. Not much happening at all.
Keep posts short. Conversational. Nothing too deep. Let Nableezy say Wikipedia needs deep, analytical, serious analysis. Then set the shitheels on anyone who does it, if the results of the analysis don't meet the desired house POV. The woke agenda. The left of Maher stuff.
Forget you ever said your policy was to minimise off topic chat because all it does is reduce the likelihood people come to post about stuff that is actually related to Wikipedia. Busy day and night, your off topic threads.
You still ban fascists. I'm still not 100% sure if that includes me or not. It's the view of the shitheels, uncorrected by the management. Or was I silenced through the selective enforcement of a silly rule? This nonsense that you give a shit how long a post is, rather than who posted it and what it said.
I kept my one mention of Jess Wade pretty short. I kept my one mention of Time 100 pretty short. Interesting to compare and contrast the different receptions, even though one directly informs the other. You'll never write a Blog Post about Jess Wade the Wonder Mute of Wikipedia. The girl who has written 2,200+ biographies and never copyedited a damn one. Someone else's job. Is she dyslexic? I don't think so. We would surely know. And just being plain thick doesn't really jive with her press either, does it? Being an entitled bitch is, if you read between the lines. If you know her history. The unwritten Jess. I just posted about an example on this forum, her last biography. Because this is a free space for free thought. Try it some time. If Zoloft will take your training wheels off. Let you criticise a girl. It is allowed. It is feminism. Equality.
You're too scared. I bet you're so fucking detached from Wikipedia these days, too distracted by Trump, you don't even fucking understand how it relates to newsworthy corruption of Wikipedia. You're too worried what Zoloft would do to punish you for depriving you of whatever the hell it is you gain by being wokesters. This is why I could only laugh on seeing you genuinely believing I'd lift a finger to help you Blog about the Time 100 Missing women. They're all still red. The section remains unanswered. Help unoffered. It's being ignored exactly the way the "inspirational" (Guardian, 2023) Jess Wade has shown all the newcomers how to do things. Anyone not banned on your forum give a shit? Is Giraffe Stapler on the case? Vigilant firing up his reverse image search? The typewriters whirring? HA HA HA HA HA.
Or am I wrong. Got you all wrong? Your motives. Your cowardice. Your competence.
Speak up Jake. I can't hear you.
Tell me I'm wrong. Show me where you're working hard to attract serious posters with broad appeal due to their intelligent offerings.
Point me to a single damn thing.
Cos I got a binder here full of mindless one line shitposting by people who quite clearly have absolutely no respect for you as their Site Admin, if the above post is really still your view.
Taking you for a fucking mug. I bet Zoloft is too.