Wikipedia Sucks!

Who for the hell is this TonyBallioni? He had started a arbcom case on WPNL, and made a drama there!

https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Natuur12&oldid=52014607#Whaledad
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whaledad

He had made first a tremendous drama on Wikiquote-NL mentioning every second word my username Graaf Statler, but why? I have never heard of the guy! But he seems to know me very well after the two years I have left.


https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:TonyBallioni

Wthjmkuiper, I was informed of the fact that you all promised the local CheckUsers to consult them by Trijnstel, whom I trust on this issue. I’ll defer to them as to if I misrepresented the information she provided me. TonyBallioni (overleg) 10 jul 2018 00:23 (CEST)

Where is this idiot escaped? It seems he had heart a rumour, doesn't speak one word Dutch, rushes in like a fool on WQNL and WPNL and Meta, starts a arbcom case and wanted to inform WMF without knowing where it all was about and what is going on! This must be a complete idiot!

You will not find a better explanation of why Wikipedia is so shit, than this....

The issue with articles on big topics or topics of major significance is that they are very difficult to write on. To use an example from the content area I’m most familiar with here Pope is no doubt a really shitty article filled with POV and broad statements (from zealots of both sorts) containing vague references, in need of both more and less citations at the same time, and likely all but impossible to get to FA because of the nature of the office and simply how much has been written about it. Compare this to Papal conclave, March 1605, one of the least significant political events in history, but one where it’s possible to write a halfway decent article. As an amateur who has a fair amount of historical research skills/access to a research university library as an alumnus, I can write on that small event. It’s much harder to write on the broad concept. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works. Or rather, doesn't.

It's quite pathetic in its lack of ambition or even insight, it really is. As I'm sure anyone who has studied Wikipedia can appreciate (not this fool then obviously), the theoretical model of Wikipedia is not and never was about one amateur trying to write an article like Pope all by themselves or in a relatively short space of time.

It is meant to be a collaboration, and it should be well within the reach of people who claim to have research skills and access. And no, seriously, for a large topic like Pope, you're not remotely supposed to read every book out there. Your so called research skills are meant to be able to identify the most useful for your task.

The Wikipedia model is most certainly not for vital articles like Pope to be left in a shit state because editors find it too hard to maintain, and are instead off working on some tiny niche page that even they admit nobody is going to want to read.

If Wikipedia can't get Pope to Featured Article status, then the entire operation is a sham. Q.E.D.

But there way of thinking in general is so weird! All of a sudden they start to understand there project is in a few days in danger. And because of a discussion about article 13 and the coming voting in De Kroeg ()Village Pump) I found this blog written by María Sefidari Huici, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation.

Every month, hundreds of thousands of volunteers make decisions about what content to include on Wikipedia, what constitutes a copyright violation, and when those decisions need to be revised. We like it this way — it allows people, not algorithms, to make decisions about what knowledge should be presented back to the rest of the world.

Every month, hundreds of thousands of volunteers make decisions about how many glasses whisky you may drink as a car driver, and what is prosecutable. We like it this way — it allows people, not algorithms, to make decisions about what drinking and driving should be in the rest of the world.

TonyBallioni is widely expected to be the next Steward. A former new page patrol and AfC review project coordinator, he became an admin with the help of everyone on IRC.

He is a devout Catholic, and does stuff on Catholic stuff, but he is very cosy with the important meta-wiki dwellers.

Etc...

tonyBallioni like antandrus, they take the wikicake and swallow that shit whole and i hope they choke to wikideath and go to wikihell:
reverting what is obvious and what is given... so when one is "blocked" on wikicrapia... that is just fine and no matter how he/she corrects something, that does not count, banned must go and articles must be made shitty again... the wikistandards of course where only the law of wikijungle rules:
https://archive.is/oZys
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history