Sorry for my slow ↑take on the New Badsites Workslop, but we'd already had so many threads along those lines that I didn't think there could be anything new to say about it.

And now that I took the trouble to clique on it, I see that there's nothing new under the ∑ to say about it, only sillier and sillier ways of saying the same ole same ole same ole (SO)³.

Soooo, I took a nap to clear my head and decided to make a fresh start, on a thread deliberately distanced from the toxic fuming of ARBCOMANIA, to discuss more general issues.

As always, the sine qua non of mens sanum is to STOP — … — … In the Name of Sanity … — … — and make a concerted effort to cease and desist from further usage of that wikiperversion of language that has come to be one of the more degenerative symptoms of terminal Wikipedism.

Really, you have to imagine a Gang of Masked and Anonymous Hoodlums who call everyone else BAD because all people of normal intelligence naturally seek to pull off their masks and find out who the devil is really doing the things that they do.

There is simply no sense or sanity to be had from capitulating to Wikipediots' peculiar perversions of language.

Jonny

This DesideraTum from DT was so good that I was tempted to turn it into a poll — but then I called the Pollaholics Anonynonynonymous Hot-Line and they were thankfully able to talk me down from it. At any rate, I think that it's still worth taking as an informal survey in the privacy of your own home. I will of course submit my own findings for your approval. The question numbering is my addition.


Jonny's picks:

1. b
2. b
3. b

Are my lessons done?

Jonny

I'm not sure this has much to do with perversions of language, but Mr. Tobias is somewhat famous for proposing either/or alternatives that deny the possibility of "grey areas." That won't stand him in good stead in this argument, I'm afraid... the best he can probably expect is to get a few people to realize that it looks petty, and that it makes for bad PR.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, the best argument against the de-linking of so-called "attack sites" is the "forbidden fruit" argument, which is rarely used for some reason. Instead, they try to paint us as "boring" and "irrelevant," which is obviously not the case, at least when we're compared to Wikipedia itself. And inexplicably, they go on about how we're all "insane" and "deranged," which is effectively the same as saying, "why are you reading this whiny rant I've just posted when you could be checking out something really, really interesting over at Wikipedia Review?"

Human curiosity is one of the most powerful forces in the world, and they shouldn't underestimate it. That and the Google rankings make up the reason why they get so many site visitors, after all.

Meanwhile, if they want to see our usage graphs for the last six months...?

Wikipsychology is nine-tenths attention, and nine-tenths of that is fixated at the grammar school level — when it comes to strategies for attention control, running the gamut from King's X !!!, through No GURLS Allowed !!!, to Talk 2 Da Hand !!!, and that's pretty much the limit of it.

Two of the many things they have yet to learn are these:

• Paying attention does not necessarily lessen a person.
• Getting attention is not unequivocally a positive thing.

Jonny

Can you post them, Somey?

wikipediareview.com Google PageRank: 5

I'm envious, because my own pagerank is lower.

By "forbidden fruit," I presume you mean the rutabaga.

Sorry to spoil a great joke, but [pedant]rutabaga (or swede, as we say here in case any British readers are still confused) is a vegetable[/pedant].

[concede nothing ever]In America we have fruit bearing rutabaga trees. They are lovely when they bloom in May.[/concede nothing ever]

I always wondered where that came from.

Actually, we're all kind of stuck here together. Check out this graphic or perhaps this graphic. Then add "Wikia.com" to the mix. That's what it feels like to be dwarfed by a shyster.

Greg

Wayda minute wayda minute I suppose spaghetti grows on trees too....

Note To Self –

To the best of my recollection, I was thinking a bit like this –

The fact that Wikipediots call The Wikipedia Review a BADSITE is a sign that we are doing our job — both as critics of their absurdly pretentious pretexts and as investigators of their never-ending stream of lies.

Conversely — or perversely, as the case may be — the only way that we could get Wikipediots to quit calling The Wikipedia Review a BADSITE is if we abandoned all self-respect as critical thinkers — just like the Φlock of Φ00d-Elect Weeners in the Moorlock Wikipens of their Moron Militia.

In fact, pursuant to my recent conversion experience (2nd epiφany) with reguard to Wikipedia, if I have anything @∀ to do with it, The Wikipedia Review is just about to get a whole lot BADDER in their SITE.

BUT A LOT MO'BETTAH IN MINE EYES …

Jonny

I might be moving to Montana soon...