Based on this discussion: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=45754

There has been lots of discussion lately as to whether Wikipedia Review is an attack site. As far as I am aware, nobody here thinks that Wikipedia Review is an attack site, and we don't want it to be an attack site. If there are attacks, they are part of a criticism, or else are off-topic examples. The criticism is not an attack. Some criticisms are broad (e.g. "History changing") others are specific (e.g. "SlimVirgin is history changing on the Lockerbie bombing article") and some are personal (e.g. "I got banned unfairly because I was trying to stop history changing"). In the course of some criticism, there may be some things that others see as attacks. Also, sometimes topics go off-topic (e.g. "Statutory rape isn't the same thing as child abuse"). But does that make it an attack site? Is the point of this site to attack?

Did you come here to attack Wikipedia editors? Do you want individual people who edit Wikipedia to suffer? Would you be happy if an individual editor were physically abused or came to any harm purely because of information that you had posted on Wikipedia Review? Or are you more interested in having people made aware of the dangers of Wikipedia?

Okay, this is a bit of a loaded poll, but nonetheless I think that if a place was an actual attack site, it would be aiming to be an attack site (e.g. cruel.com, rotten.com, heartless-bitches.com) or else it wouldn't care if it was an attack site (e.g. encyclopediadramatica.com). It would include at least a lot of people who visit it that want it to be an attack site, and furthermore it would consider attacks to be reasonable.

There may be an argument that we should be an attack site. I don't know. As I've said before, if we ever become an attack site, I'll leave. But I am sure that at least some people want this to be an attack site. Certainly when it first started, all of the Wikipedia admins and pro-Wikipedia people that came wanted it to be an attack site. People like Snowspinner, Ambi, David Gerard and Tony Sidaway who used to frequent here loved the idea that this might be an attack site, and wanted to use this site to attack people. But is that the case now? We've managed to get rid of most of the trolls that came here, and certainly don't have anyone who regularly trolls Wikipedia Review.

NO. It does not attack Wikipedians, nor does it "out" them (I thought that was for LGBTs, not Elite Clique members). All WR does is discusses the corruptions of Wikipedia, it is a criticism site. Criticism should not be attacking people, but the one being criticised should heed the warning. As far as I'm concerned, English Wikipedia is an attack site: there are times when rude names are called, there are times when "you (insert expletive here), you troll, your banned (note the spelling, Admins don't know how to spell, just how to annoy people)." So, why do people on WP link to WP if B.A.D.S.I.T.E.S really is policy.

The poll is flipping me the bird 4 times in a row...

No, we're not an attack site. If we were really spreading malicious stuff on people, instead of trying to make sense of a website that's really screwed up from just about every possible angle, I would say so.

Yes, we have nutballs, and rumors, but so does every community on the internet. On occasion, we get someone who really does try to spread stuff, but the community's been really resilient and doesn't allow it to happen.

Just a mini bump so that we can get more votes.

The word "attack" has plenty of definitions. I don't have any problem at all with "attacking" Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I condone physical attacks, or baseless ad hominem verbal attacks, or libel, or trivial spats. But a rational attack on Wikipedia? Absolutely. It is just what they need. There is nothing wrong with an "attack site," if it tells the truth.

Wikipedia Review isn't an attack site, and shouldn't become one.

However, I do think that more effort should be made in fact-checking and citation. If you're going to speculate that someone is a government agent (for example), you should provide plenty of links to support that conclusion. In addition, it should be made clear that such conclusions are merely speculation, rather than assertions of fact.

If you want an attack site, go to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which really is one.

If you want a site for constructive discussion of Wikipedia, that's what this forum is for. Note that the definition of "constructive discussion" varies from person to person. Some people believe that the most constructive thing to do to Wikipedia is to take it off of the internet. Others believe it can be improved.

Good post. I was hoping for this kind of discussion. Something other than the "party line".

I mean Wikipedia Review does "attack" Wikipedia, and individuals on Wikipedia. But so does any form of criticism.

I'm telling you right now: I'm attacking Wikipedia. It is built on a deeply flawed, probably fatally flawed, concept that fact and truth can be determined by consensus. Its administration is horribly designed, and many of its administrators are, at best, incompetent.

I feel no need to be "constructive" in my attacks. I feel only a need to be rational, truthful, intelligent, careful, and relevant. I think it's wrong to suggest that attacking a malevolent enterprise is somehow illegitimate. Frankly, I think it's a duty to attack Wikipedia. Just make sure not to be stupid about it.

Wikipedia deserves every smart, articulate, well-aimed, truthful attack it gets. The more destructive the better. The blunt reality is that many, if not most, really screwed up enterprises will make the necessary changes only if they suffer, or fear they will suffer, effective attacks. So have at it. Maybe they'll do what they need to do -- if it can even be done, which I tend to doubt. If they can't make the necessary changes, then I'll be happy if they're destroyed, by which I mean not that they should suffer physical repercussions or even be driven from the Internet, but rather exposed for what they are and thereby rendered an afterthought among the thinking people they seek to influence.

I pretty much agree. I think it is ok to speculate as long as you discuss the confidence level and reservations of your speculation. WR is usually pretty good about this type of thing, although you might have to dig to locate the discussion of reservations or possible weakness of our speculation. On occasion we might let down on this standard.

1-Unsure/2-Yes/3-No/4-No

Let me put this a bit differently: An intelligent, articulate, truthful, well-aimed, honest attack is by definition, a "constructive" attack.

I have a problem of seing it that way. Being a critic site and being an attack site could coexist, one does not necessarly contradict with the other. The question should have rather been, is it solely an attack site? No. In a way, one can ''attack'' by criticising, but attacking for the purpouse of attacking is what we probably imply by our own conception. According to Wikipedia it is an attack site, Wikipedia rules do not really make the difference between both.

Also, this being a forum, claiming it being an attack site supposes that this is the purpouses and that it is intended, like a party line which of course is ridiculous. Members come here, they may attack or not, it is like a public place, not a place where the owner claim ''come and attack.''

To those who want to be "constructive," I offer this from Webster's:

at·tack

1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words <a speech attacking her political enemies>
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids>
4 : to set to work on <attack a problem>
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture

I've been contributing to this site for a few days, and it's clear that Wikipedia is not only critically flawed at the conceptual core and lacks the administrative tools to offset its flaw, but that Wikipedia is controlled and operated by individuals who are, at best, minimally competent and making it up as they go along, and who more often are vicious and perhaps even venal. Don't kid yourselves. That's what you're dealing with.

And people here worry about "attacking" that? What, do you have abused child syndrome? Do you honestly think you're going to patch it up now, and have a happy Thanksgiving dinner with these people and sing Kumbaya over pumpkin pie? If you do, then I suggest you sit down and tell yourselves the truth. Wikipedia doesn't want you back. They're not going to want you back. And you should not want to have them want you back.

Even if your fantasy came true and the administrators who treated you badly did what you want them to do and admit that they've done you wrong, there'll be new, unmanaged teenagers next month and next year doing the same things to others. To think you can fix it is like thinking that they could take the bad boys off the island in The Lord of the Flies, ship in a new crew and that things wouldn't turn out the same way in a year.

Far more importantly, they'll be producing a product that can't be trusted and doesn't deserve to be trusted because its concept is hollow and its execution designed to be a political circus. Look: Wikipedia doesn't work because it can't work, and the sooner you wrap your heads around it the better off you'll be. I'm telling you, it's baked in the cake.

I'll apply this to what caused me to come here, the Bowdlerization and outright censorship of their article about Matt Sanchez, the latest Jeff Gannon figure to ooze out from underneath the latest Republican rock. If Wikipedia were to make that biography accurate and factual, it wouldn't change my view of Wikipedia, because I'd know they'd go happily on and pull the same crap somewhere else, or maybe at a later time with the same article, using different editors and admins.

To me, the task is to attack Wikipedia in a reasoned, truthful, articulate manner. If I'm wrong and being attacked causes them to fix it, well, that would be great. But I really think there is a greater chance that a couple of black Crown Victorias will pull up to my house on Monday, and that out will step a gaggle of government agents who inform me I've just been named emperor and that I need to accompany them to the airport where Air Force One is waiting to whisk me to my throne.

An organization that treats facts and truth as negotiable can never be trusted to publish an "encyclopedia" worth relying on. It's not fixable, so you've got to attack it. So grow up, and, more importantly, grow a spine, would ya?

Pwork, while I agree with you on the definition of the word attack, it is not that simple. Many trust and rely on Wikipedia as a source, this is a very important factor. If we know something is wrong, more particularly with articles which have mistakes which could harm, it is our moral duty to use that system to fix the problem. I said that the only way I will return is everytime I should do it for ethical reasons. We can crticise Wikipedia, but we could not remain silent when materials are inserted which do harm. A Turkish scholar who was comming to Montreal to give a lecture about the Armenian genocide was arrested by autorities because a moron edited the article about him accusing him of terrorism. No matter how many time I am banned, and no matter how hard I don't trust the system, I will have to edit articles when I feal I should do it.

Some have a different approch, attacking and fixing thing within the system, as long as people trust it, we have no choice of doing that.

This is a very good point.

If Wikipedia was "just a web site", then the only point to us having a critic site would be as a "banned user's forum", where we could bitch and moan about how unfairly we were treated, and couldn't really call ourselves critics at all, and most likely we'd become some kind of an attack site.

The problem is that Wikipedia is taken seriously in some places. While Wikipedia is taken seriously, we have to highlight to people why it shouldn't be taken seriously. We have to act as a kind of disclaimer to people, a "use at your own risk" button.

Indeed, if Wikipedia were acting morally, they'd have, right on their main page, a disclaimer saying "Wikipedia should be used at your own risk, see Wikipedia Review".

But rather than doing that, Wikipedia insists on censoring all criticism of itself, thus pretending that there is no criticism, thus pretending that it is perfect and beyond reproach. Look at their Criticism of Wikipedia article, and see what proportion of actual, serious criticisms they have actually included.

Sorry, but I don't see "Potential to change history" anywhere there.

I take an opposite viewpoint. Wikipedia will never be trustworthy. It is therefore our moral duty to make it as untrustworthy as possible, so as to reveal its true nature. Therefore it is our duty to vandalise, not fix.

That sounds like exactly what Lir used to say.

As a general observation — that I just can't seem to help myself from making one more time — I think that we fall into utter phutility every time we attempt to use Wikipediot words with Wikipediot senses, or, more precisely, the lacks thereof.

So we'd solve a lot of our problems if we just quit doing that.

Jonny

Even commies have the time right twice a day!

I guess it was a loaded poll, but the only thing that seems to be in serious dispute is whether, by Wikipedia's own definition, Wikipedia Review is an attack site.

The margins are pretty wide that:

1) Wikipedia Review is not really an attack site
2) Wikipedia shouldn't be banning anyone for being a member of an attack site, or linking to an attack site
3) Most people who come here don't want it to be an attack site

The only thing in dispute is:

4) Whether or not Wikipedia Review is an attack site by Wikipedia's current definition

I can't recall us having a poll that was this clear cut.

I agree with Pwok about WP being flawed at its very core and that there nothing to be done to salvage it. The fact that people look to it as a source is not part of the solution: it's the essential part of the problem.

I don't see that exposing WP for what it is as "attacking" it. Often, as in the case of "List of Rape Victims" and the Crystal Gail Mangum page, our action of pointing these things out has lead to their being deleted. This is CONSTRUCTIVE for WP. However, this does not solve the essential problems of WP, this simply cleans up little messes here and there. This is not a solution.

The solution, in my way of thinking, consists of showing the media that WP is not reliable, that its agenda is "cloudy", at best, that it is operating as a not-for-profit foundation affiliated with many "for profit" companies is compelling and finally WP has major problems with COI right up to the head honcho himself....How many of those "big breast" models that JzG likes modeled for BOMIS?

Seriously, if their credibility goes, so goes the funding....and so goes the venture capital....Jimbo will have to go back to peddling softcore porn, but he probably made more money doing that anyway....

Yeah, I can't see them being funded by Bomis again, or by any porn. Maybe Jimbo would go back to doing that.

I think more likely is that if they lose funding, they'd go to Google, and use AdSense to make money, or else to try to seek some way to get a portion of the money that other sites who mirror their articles and use AdSense on those make.

E.g. you mirror Wikipedia and then make profit from your mirror, a portion of that profit has to go back to Wikipedia.

They may even have a legal right to ask that.

I agree. The solution is exactly as you say. Discredit Wikipedia by proving that it is unreliable, that it has been hijacked by idealogues, that it is a for-profit business venture built on the backs of volunteer do-gooders, and that the administration knows all this and doesn't care. The solution is *not* to work within the system to improve specific articles or get them deleted.

PS This really should be in Wikipedia Review Review, its just that I'd like for people on Wikipedia, and people who are not members to be able to see it.

I guess I've violated WP:POINT again. Luckily there's no WR:POINT so I'm okay.

The real question I'd pose is why people here are so afraid of making attacks.

If the system worked, we could work within the system. Then again, if it worked, we wouldn't be here.

Our goal is not to improve WP in tiny ways while leaving the deep problems in place. Fixing bad articles one at a time is at best a temporary fix, since the articles go right back to being bad again due to the fundamental flaws of WP.

Our goal is to raise awareness of WP's problems and ofter effective solutions to the underlying causes.

Al

I like this statement.

"All the criticism that Wikipedia will allow" states that Wikipedia Review is only permitted to make individual tiny criticisms, is never allowed to make examples that make any individual look bad (ergo never actually explain why the problem happened), and is not allowed to make criticism about anything that is not pre-approved (e.g. our criticisms about controlled articles and history-changing). The problem is that Wikipedia says whether something is a "valid criticism" or not. Why is something a valid criticism? It is a valid criticism because it is within the realm of things that they can answer and it doesn't embarass them. All of our "invalid criticisms" are things that demonstrate that there's something seriously wrong there.

For nearly 2 years now Wikipedia Review has consistently posted "invalid criticisms" about such things as CIA, secret service and governments as a whole using Wikipedia to pursue a political agenda, and that people are truth-changing for their own ends. And look what's happening now? Since the Wiki Scanner scandal broke, you've seen thousands of reports about CIA, FBI and secret service agents all over the world changing truth about political issues, companies truth-changing for financial benefit, and politicians truth-changing so that they can win elections. Now we are seeing this, so Wikipedia, WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG! All of these claims that it is "invalid criticism" are all now proven wrong.

Where is the apology though? Where is the "Uh sorry, yes, you were a legitimate critic site all along"? No, instead they now say that while we were right, they object that we "get too specific", and label that as being an "attack site".

I mean seriously, in a happy-happy world, Wikipedia would look at a site like this and say "Woops, we screwed up", unban everyone who posts here and obviously shouldn't have been banned, look at all of the criticisms and change their policy to state it, and then link to us to demonstrate that some people don't like Wikipedia.

But Wikipedia instead chooses the censorship route.

Being trustworthy and being trusted are not the same thing. Anyway, Wikipedia is not our property we can not destroy it.

Damn top posters!

Right. We can't destroy it, or if we do, then its probably a crime.

BINGO. They're simply not reliable. That's the message.

To be fair, this is really a Wikipedia Review Review topic, not a general discussion. I put it in general discussion so that our guests could see it (95% of people who come to Wikipedia Review don't have an account). However, since this has got as many votes as it is going to get, its probably time to put it in its proper folder.

Or do people think it should still be in General? I'll see what people think first.

i think it was the st00pidest poll you've created yet — but that's jes me — no doubt you'll want another poll to decide.

Jonny

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it "st00pid," but there didn't really seem to be much chance for any surprises in the results...

The real question is, how far do we want to go in "attacking" Wikipedia? Obviously, some of the recent press coverage has made it quite clear that Wikipedia's traditional definition of the term "attack site" is seen as almost completely absurd by the media, and by extension, the general population. Obviously, people want to know what the fuck is going on over there. And all the head-in-the-sand, oblivious insularity of the site's leadership isn't going to change that - it's only going to make it worse. Right now, I'd prefer it if Wikipedia Review were more of an "attack site," going by the real-world definition of the term. Because people don't really want criticism so much at this point - they want answers. And not the kind you get (or don't) by reading the article on "Bulbasaur."

We're actually in danger of being surpassed by the mainstream media at this rate, and then we're really in trouble.

Huh?

1) Why are we in danger?
2) Why is this a problem?

The mainstream media is focussing on non-issues still.

Aside from the Trust issue that has been coming up more and more lately, this Forum faces many clear and present dangers to its usefulness as a critical force. But this is not the place, and I'm a cup short of being awake just yet.

Jonny

What issues are those? Put it in WRR if you wish to analyse it in depth.

I think what he means is that if this forum can not do what it is meant for by fear of being accused of being an attack site, others (particularly the media) will replace it.

Pwok the psychopath who will "tell the truth" he makes up about others while lying about who he is.

Hi Matt! How are things?

Interesting...1 person in favour of banning WR members (assuming they consider WR an attack site) and 5 who came here for the "attack site" purpose. Curious as to who these guys are, though...

For the record, I haven't registered a vote in this poll for a few simple reasons.

The first two questions depend on a pair of idiosyncratic definitions, neither of which are expressed. One is my own idiosyncratic definition of an "attack site" which doesn't even exist in my own mind. The other is WP's idiosyncratic definition, which may well exist somewhere, but which I would be hard pressed to even recite, let alone apprehend.

The third poll question is thus meaningless and unanswerable for me.

The fourth question is the only one that I can answer at all, and the answer is no. But neither does the question ask the more meaningful question of why I (or anyone else for that matter) came here.

On the other hand, I hope that in the six months I've been here, it's become clear that my interest is peaceable and constructive dialogue about how best to organize (or repair) the enterprise of crafting a respectable and reliable encyclopedia, without descending into gratuitous demonization and character assassination of those with whom I differ.