ericbarbour wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 10:44 pm
Traffic is everything and content is merely the bait.
The content is totally irrelevant; the goal is traffic traffic traffic
--
The site is content agnostic - there is no quality imperative - the only issue is bulk quantity of data as to generate traffic
--the simple format of text data lends itself to analysis, has a very low cost to host-process, and is no cost to grow-append
--the size of the data creates a moat
There is quite a bit of valuable and traceable metadata being compiled for profit or insight into people
--more is going on under the hood than we are privy to (mining, analytics)
--Google is a big part of the story - its the processing and monetization part of the story
--that is why there was a lawsuit against the NSA
--The metadata is very valuable to private businesses; data about data
The irrelevant Editors and administrators (like Koavf) are useful idiot-tools generating searchable text, metadata, and therefore traffic
--these morons eat each other for lunch - its an ouroboros
--the participatory aspect of the site vests people into the "con, confidence-game"
--What does Koavf have to show for millions of edits?, not a dime, he was rejected, now his socks are spinning and woolgathering
--The site attracts the mentally ill like "moths to the flame" -- it is a "red forest" (aka Chernobyl radioactive) for participants
----Like Koavf, Molly White will eventually be eaten; I am sure the WMF "loves her" for denting an income stream
--The individuals involved in editing the site are totally irrelevant
--the structure prevents folks from obtaining an overview in parallax - look here not here - look at an encyclopedia not its overview, look at a participatory accomplishment for mankind not at the nefarious truth of the matter.
And then the "foundation" elevates;
---it distances the founder from his (and the websites) roots in porn
--------the roots of the tree are poisoned therefore the tree is poison; and I think that is true with WMF and Wikipedia
--------the founder could not make money in porn, and his wiki idea was failing, he structured into a non-profit (con)
---it provides exculpation - responsibility taking for the quality or even legality of the data
---it distances itself from its use of free labor, folks editing think they are doing something laudable - not the case at all
---it memorializes and institutionalizes an egregious, immoral, and dangerous platform
---it is the big part of the cost equation (going around the rules-law)
https://www.aclu.org/cases/wikimedia-v- ... dments-act
Since I now know where to look (thanks to WS); I see more and more nonsense, with
a very small number of people (perhaps less than 100) (many mentally ill or autistic) going full bore to "defend" and to a lesser extent expand the indefensible. There are about the same number, or lesser number, of people and institutions that are profiting from this abomination.
The front end of Wikipedia (what people see and edit) is just a diversion; A small number of people directly profit from Wikipedia (look at the salaries of WMF) and most importantly some major institutions (Google, NSA etc); that profit center has its basis in traffic generation and metadata.