Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
Sucks Fan
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:16 pm

He's saying stop and it's obvious that AT rescue argued with him,
Jason Scott appears to have initially solicited a discussion.
Offend an owner, on a wiki like that, you can expect your account will be toast.
ATrescue or Kyan never personally offended Jason Scott, as far as I have seen.
So what happened with ATrescue? Contributions. Very high contribution rate.
They should actually be grateful to have such a prolific editor there.

don't use the site unless you accept the authority.
Correct. But there is apparently no clear prior indication of joining a community that is run by a dicktator (pun intended, i.e. someone who behaves very hostile against his users).

But places such as https://Poal.co/s/ModAbuse are good for warning users.
#BbbGate [+] [Bbb23 exposed]

User avatar
Sucks Mod
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Jason Scott: Criticizing Wikipedia, but has a dark side too.

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:12 pm

I understand that the user may have expected to be treated differently. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. However, perhaps before investing so much work in a site, might it be prudent to investigate who owns it and how it is managed?

It seems you have rules for human behavior that Mr. Scott does not accept. Does he have the right to be blunt? If it harms the site, who is harmed?

Now if he were to chase the user about the internet, this would take on an entirely different color. However, it does seem that the user might be chasing him. What result do you expect?

Without seeing the rest of that IRC transcript, I.e., what ATrescue said, I really have little opinion except what I wrote. I cannot tell if his response was "reasonable" or not.

Scott is an owner, behaving like an owner, and as an asshole. So what?

Look, they have a saying in AA, "All it takes to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot." If you want to serve the cause of archiving, how about identifying others with the same goal and supporting their efforts -- aside from using that site. How about starting your own site? Registration as low as $2 for the first year. I just started wikitop.cc for that. And a virtual private server, $2 per month. But you will need much more storage, probably, if you want to host significant archives, but you can always use archive.is and archive.org.

Endless complaint about Scott will do nothing for you and your life, the opposite, it will trap you in resentment and blame and all that stuff that poisons our lives. If you want to document what happened, turn off your knee-jerk reactions and focus on fact and making it clearly organized and accessible. That can actually help heal trauma. That's a wiki. It could be covered on wikitop.cc. Unless you grossly troll, you will not be banned without clear defied warning. You will have high freedom in your user space there. PM me if you want an account.

Wikignomes can be useful there, but no matter how much "valuable work" you do, wikis are still communities and cooperation and collaboration are crucial. Discussion is necessary when there are conflicts, but don't take that as giving you a right to demand that others discuss if they don't want to. Rather, it's advice to you: discuss before imposing your will. Unless you are the owner, as Scott was on that site. Then you can pretty much do whatever the eff you please, since you are paying the server bills.

Post Reply