Now there's an "Abstract Wikipedia" project

For WMF employee / slave nonsense, developer hijinks, and MediaWiki and related software screw-ups.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1283 times
Been thanked: 2025 times

Re: Now there's an "Abstract Wikipedia" project

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:45 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:51 am
Kumioko wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:44 am
I'm with you on not trusting those people. Forrester's is worse than worthless.
Is there ANYONE at the WMF who isn't?
Original MediaWiki developers like Tim Starling and Brion Vibber aren't total assholes and can actually code. Wikipedia would not exist today if not for them. Ultimately it will not matter. Chances are good that they are already being pushed toward the door, and probably have not realized it yet.

Since the WMF has become a nonprofit money trench, I expect the good ones will eventually be forced out, no matter how good or valuable they are. Any value-adding work they did in the past will be forgotten as outright incompetent parasites take over Wikimedia software operations. This is a commonplace HR-caused weakness with successful nonprofits generally. Assholes get in and hire their asshole friends and compatriots.

As long as they can keep lying to the general public, so the public continues to use WP, and thereby are forced to see the endless banner ads begging for MO' MONEY, the liars can keep the little dirt empire going. And James Forrester (the ultimate Jimbo parasite) will stay attached to the Wiki-Carbuncle. If HE ever bails out of his six-figure job at the WMF, THEN you will know they are in real trouble.

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1402
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1467 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: Now there's an "Abstract Wikipedia" project

Post by Bbb23sucks » Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:43 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:45 pm
Bbb23sucks wrote:
Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:51 am
Kumioko wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:44 am
I'm with you on not trusting those people. Forrester's is worse than worthless.
Is there ANYONE at the WMF who isn't?
Original MediaWiki developers like Tim Starling and Brion Vibber aren't total assholes and can actually code. Wikipedia would not exist today if not for them. Ultimately it will not matter. Chances are good that they are already being pushed toward the door, and probably have not realized it yet.

Since the WMF has become a nonprofit money trench, I expect the good ones will eventually be forced out, no matter how good or valuable they are. Any value-adding work they did in the past will be forgotten as outright incompetent parasites take over Wikimedia software operations. This is a commonplace HR-caused weakness with successful nonprofits generally. Assholes get in and hire their asshole friends and compatriots.

As long as they can keep lying to the general public, so the public continues to use WP, and thereby are forced to see the endless banner ads begging for MO' MONEY, the liars can keep the little dirt empire going. And James Forrester (the ultimate Jimbo parasite) will stay attached to the Wiki-Carbuncle. If HE ever bails out of his six-figure job at the WMF, THEN you will know they are in real trouble.
What feature measures do you think the WMF will employ to get money to feed their ever-expanding bloated bureaucracy after donations dry-up? I know they have been working wikimedia.com, but what else? Ads? Premium content? Paid unblocks?
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1283 times
Been thanked: 2025 times

Re: Now there's an "Abstract Wikipedia" project

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:26 pm

Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:43 am
What feature measures do you think the WMF will employ to get money to feed their ever-expanding bloated bureaucracy after donations dry-up? I know they have been working wikimedia.com, but what else? Ads? Premium content? Paid unblocks?
Forcing people to PAY TO EDIT. They know DAMN well that's the primary WP addiction generator. It would cause total chaos, and thousands of content writers would bail, and scream bloody murder all the way out the door. But they saw Musk install "paid premium accounts" at Twitter, and people screamed--but even more people quietly paid up. Once they're addicted to the digital heroin, they will puke up $$$ to keep it going.

The paid editors already manicuring biographies and corporate articles would be very happy to have paid accounts. Most likely, this would lead to even more biased and controversy-free content.

(Also remember how many Twitter shitheads had booming businesses based around their Twitter maundering. They would be fools not to cough up $8/month for a "confirmed account". Which would be the next logical step for the WMF. Actually I'm surprised Facebook hasn't forced it on their "dedicated users" as yet. Maybe next year?)

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1402
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1467 times
Been thanked: 294 times

Re: Now there's an "Abstract Wikipedia" project

Post by Bbb23sucks » Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:53 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:26 pm
Bbb23sucks wrote:
Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:43 am
What feature measures do you think the WMF will employ to get money to feed their ever-expanding bloated bureaucracy after donations dry-up? I know they have been working wikimedia.com, but what else? Ads? Premium content? Paid unblocks?
Forcing people to PAY TO EDIT. They know DAMN well that's the primary WP addiction generator. It would cause total chaos, and thousands of content writers would bail, and scream bloody murder all the way out the door. But they saw Musk install "paid premium accounts" at Twitter, and people screamed--but even more people quietly paid up. Once they're addicted to the digital heroin, they will puke up $$$ to keep it going.

The paid editors already manicuring biographies and corporate articles would be very happy to have paid accounts. Most likely, this would lead to even more biased and controversy-free content.

(Also remember how many Twitter shitheads had booming businesses based around their Twitter maundering. They would be fools not to cough up $8/month for a "confirmed account". Which would be the next logical step for the WMF. Actually I'm surprised Facebook hasn't forced it on their "dedicated users" as yet. Maybe next year?)
So, unironically this?

Now that I think about it, a lot of that page is unironically true.
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

Post Reply