The hilarious case of JailBrokenIPODGoneWild
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:27 am
Oh wow.
If you have a spare hour, dive into the hilarious history of this account.
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipe ... ODGoneWild
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Manhattan
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1106476899
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ocked_user
It says so much about how ridiculous Wikipedia is as a concept.
* Wikipedia editors are always wierd. The only question is, how wierd. Insomniac, obsessive, child, sock, retard? Take your pick, they all potentially fit this editor who made over 13,000 edits to Wikipedia.
* Non-human interaction, especially ridiculous template bombing, is the norm (i.e. Wikipedia is not a collaboration in any meaningful sense)
* Human interaction is rare, and never followed up when that interaction is to advise or warn.
* You can edit for literally years without anyone ever noticing you don't communicate AT ALL, let alone doing anything about it
* A truly horrendous block of a potentially useful editor who had previously been given conflicting signals about whether their editing was good, bad or a mix of both.
* An extremely late inquest where nobody has learned any lessons from previous similar cases and nobody is wondering why Wikipedia can never detect these looming maintenance issues arising from one poorly handled user before they become so huge it is far easier to just ignore it.
If you have a spare hour, dive into the hilarious history of this account.
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipe ... ODGoneWild
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Manhattan
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1106476899
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ocked_user
It says so much about how ridiculous Wikipedia is as a concept.
* Wikipedia editors are always wierd. The only question is, how wierd. Insomniac, obsessive, child, sock, retard? Take your pick, they all potentially fit this editor who made over 13,000 edits to Wikipedia.
* Non-human interaction, especially ridiculous template bombing, is the norm (i.e. Wikipedia is not a collaboration in any meaningful sense)
* Human interaction is rare, and never followed up when that interaction is to advise or warn.
* You can edit for literally years without anyone ever noticing you don't communicate AT ALL, let alone doing anything about it
* A truly horrendous block of a potentially useful editor who had previously been given conflicting signals about whether their editing was good, bad or a mix of both.
* An extremely late inquest where nobody has learned any lessons from previous similar cases and nobody is wondering why Wikipedia can never detect these looming maintenance issues arising from one poorly handled user before they become so huge it is far easier to just ignore it.