The Wiki Cabal, the newest Wikipedia criticism blog

[Dysklyver]

Changes.

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/25/changes/

I think you should still try to aim for a daily post, just make sure it is always well written and relevant. There's certainly enough source material, the only limit is surely time. I hope it's clear already, but I'd be happy for you to use any of my stuff if you need to quickly plug a gap. I think you did well managing that rate for this long, it would be a shame to stop now. It is a selling point.

Also, don't get too wrapped up in what looks to others to be worthwhile or quality content. For a start, that may not be a true reflection of its usefulness or necessity, and you may well lose the motivation for doing it. Write what interests you, write what reflects your views, and don't try to do anything else.

Chasing popularity and what they believe readers want, is exactly what killed Wikipediocracy, turning it from a serious critic site to a sad little chill out room. They don't seem to have noticed it even now, but it is a long time since anyone but the Wikipedians cared what they write about.

So far the killer is definitely time, especially for the more complicated posts.

I really like the stuff you write, and have definitely based several articles entirely on your ideas.

Asofar I am considering what people are interested in, and am not sure that filler is what people are into so much. An example is Lovely Professional University In which I wrote a few paragraphs and included lots of bumf from Wikipedia. This received barely a quarter of the views as #wikipedia-en-help which was vastly shorter, but contained more actual analysis. I think if I rush then key points can be missed, there's no doubt for example that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a colossal example of Wikipedians both wasting their time and filling the Encyclopedia with crap, but I didn't really go into any detail in my post, and most people probably didn't see the relevance of the debate in the post.

Also numerous people don't check the site daily, and for some reason almost no one does on Monday. I think really the main point is that I need to give myself the option of occasionally missing a day. Although I will still try to post daily, it's not the guaranteed daly posting that I started with.

[badmachine]

Changes.

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/25/changes/

I think you should still try to aim for a daily post, just make sure it is always well written and relevant. There's certainly enough source material, the only limit is surely time. I hope it's clear already, but I'd be happy for you to use any of my stuff if you need to quickly plug a gap. I think you did well managing that rate for this long, it would be a shame to stop now. It is a selling point.

Also, don't get too wrapped up in what looks to others to be worthwhile or quality content. For a start, that may not be a true reflection of its usefulness or necessity, and you may well lose the motivation for doing it. Write what interests you, write what reflects your views, and don't try to do anything else.

Chasing popularity and what they believe readers want, is exactly what killed Wikipediocracy, turning it from a serious critic site to a sad little chill out room. They don't seem to have noticed it even now, but it is a long time since anyone but the Wikipedians cared what they write about.

So far the killer is definitely time, especially for the more complicated posts.

I really like the stuff you write, and have definitely based several articles entirely on your ideas.

Asofar I am considering what people are interested in, and am not sure that filler is what people are into so much. An example is Lovely Professional University In which I wrote a few paragraphs and included lots of bumf from Wikipedia. This received barely a quarter of the views as #wikipedia-en-help which was vastly shorter, but contained more actual analysis. I think if I rush then key points can be missed, there's no doubt for example that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a colossal example of Wikipedians both wasting their time and filling the Encyclopedia with crap, but I didn't really go into any detail in my post, and most people probably didn't see the relevance of the debate in the post.

Also numerous people don't check the site daily, and for some reason almost no one does on Monday. I think really the main point is that I need to give myself the option of occasionally missing a day. Although I will still try to post daily, it's not the guaranteed daly posting that I started with.

Ah #wikipedia-en-help, i know it well:

[20:22] <+Ironholds> badmachine, I'm not in any kind of relationship with the declining sysop. Shut your pie-hole.
[20:22] <badmachine> lol
[20:22] <+Ironholds> indeed, for the longest of times she wanted to break my neck
[20:23] <badmachine> what a thing for the community liaison to say
[20:23] <+Ironholds> I'm here in a personal role

The rest of that log did not survive the perils of WikipediaLogs.com, unfortunately, and now only snippets exist on Wikipediocrazy and ED.

[Dysklyver]

Well hairs something more recent;

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/26/oshwahs-hair/

[Graaf Statler]

Your blog is very humorous written, Artur. But legal matters, most Wikipedians are not interested in legal matters. And have no idea about it, all three letters we got from lawyers was legal rubbish. Just bullshit. But this blogpost of you really fascinates me, But didn't they already had Gerlach and Dimi, there man in Brussels, there legal expert about European regulation?
Why do they now need a lawyer? And of course the number of law students who are interested in free knowledge as a field of interest is probably quite small. Especial in Europe where free use is absolute not flying because of the strikt regulation of copyright. It is only posible to create free source in Europe, not to collect it in a legal way, so I don't know where they are locking for, special because most American lawyers have not even a clou about European and local regulation in Europe. What is extreem complex and patchwork.

I think you and I are almost the only (bare food, at least I, Arthur not.) juristen who should be qualified for this job, but I am not interested and I don't think they wanted us..... Because we should be extreem bad news for them.

[NadirAli]

Do they accept contributions like Wikipedicoracy? Some people I know just might be interested to help.

[CrowsNest]

Do they accept contributions like Wikipedicoracy? Some people I know just might be interested to help.

As per his recent "Changes" posting...

any person with a sensible viewpoint on Wikipedia or the WMF can publish their own report on any relevant issue by asking the editor.

Alternative viewpoints are to the most extent welcomed. But. If you are very pro-Wikipedia, you would be better off writing for their in-house newsletter, still abandoned after it’s contributors and editor-in-chief left in disgust.

Wikipediocracy doesn't so much accept contributions, as beg, borrow and steal them.

[Dysklyver]

Do they accept contributions like Wikipedicoracy? Some people I know just might be interested to help.

As per his recent "Changes" posting...

any person with a sensible viewpoint on Wikipedia or the WMF can publish their own report on any relevant issue by asking the editor.

Alternative viewpoints are to the most extent welcomed. But. If you are very pro-Wikipedia, you would be better off writing for their in-house newsletter, still abandoned after it’s contributors and editor-in-chief left in disgust.

Wikipediocracy doesn't so much accept contributions, as beg, borrow and steal them.

Yep, contributions are welcome.

General rules are that the post should be able to survive a DMCA complaint, not contain excessive personal details that aren't already published somewhere, and not be too off-topic from the subject of "any wiki and people to do with any wiki".

[ericbarbour]

Well hairs something more recent;

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/26/oshwahs-hair/

As I said there, Oshwah is a classic "evil patroller" type. Even this late in WP's history assholes like him are "tolerated".

[CrowsNest]

As I feared, abandoning the goal of one post a day has allowed complacency to set in. No posts for a week is not a good look. I am already finding myself not bothering to check, I may even have to request new posts are advertised here......

Wikipedia isn't going to criticise itself

So, in short......




















GET TO WORK !



You do realise most of the people at Wikipediocracy will be engaging you in their brand of meaningless and time wasting conversation, just to ensure exactly this interruption of service?

P.S. I know an excellent Editor In Chief with a solid background in criticising Wikipedia who is looking for work right now. Interested?

He comes with excellent references, all from himself.

[Graaf Statler]

Yeh, Artur, those "discussions" there are a complete waste of time with the sect member there and there funny sekt leader Jake. Indeed, don't spend your time on there meaningless and time wasting conversations with sensor and tricker happy cowboy midsize Jake. Jack don't give a damm about pedia, and is only trolling a bit around there and putting oil on the fire, that is all. We are waiting, we are all waiting for a new blog post.