http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167295503




Notice, "In exchange, I'd be happy to provide two hours of admin labor in an area of the infobox person's choice, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable."

This person really cares.

It's really not that strange a request. There are lots of admin backlogs, so two hours of (competent) admin work is a somewhat valuable commodity.

Believe it or not, some of us do stuff other than push POVs and hang out on AN/I. A lot of admin work is pretty dry and boring.

And you do that all for free, while Jimbo runs the multi-million-dollar Wikia and jets around the world?

How noble.

I remember seeing the requester mention that he was "working" on a bottle of hard liquor while working on the backlog, so it sounds strictly recreational.

What Jimbo does really has nothing to do with my editing of Wikipedia. That's what most Wikipedia Review people seem to not get... very few people who edit Wikipedia are doing so to suck up to Jimbo, in fact a lot of editors don't even particularly like him.

I myself edit articles because I enjoy it, if someone other than Jimbo finally provides a better place to do that, I'll be first to sign up. Really only a few (usually quite unproductive) people edit because they like Jimbo and the foundation. Most people just like editing.

So you can go on making sniping remarks, or you can try to get past the caricature of Wikipedia many people here have. Your choice. There is a lot of valid criticism to be made of Wikipedia... but turning it all into the equivalent of a Maureen Dowd column, where we just make fun of a larger-than-life personality all day, that's really not very good criticism.

I agree sometimes it's fun to write encyclopedia articles. I just think that it's more fun to write for my own encyclopedia than Jimbo's.

I own the articles as much as Jimbo does, though. I can take the articles wherever I want, Jimbo can't do anything about that. Wikipedia happens to provide a place where lots of people will do free work on my articles... which is what I want.

It's funny how Wikipedia Review people make it all about Jimbo... you guys seem far more influenced in by his personality than the average Wikipedian. Jimbo's name very rarely comes up in discussions on Wikipedia... but you guys seem to quickly inject him into every single conversation here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

"The result was whip it, whip it good."

Please explain this, oh Wikipedia Admins???

I believe you. However you are being exploited to provide free labor in return for supporting an enormous enterprise because having sacrificed so much, it's difficult to walk away from.

Once you realise that you want a life where someone isn't turning your house and garden over even five seconds 24 hours a day 365 days a year, then you'll start to dislike WP. Then you'll feel like quitting. Then you'll pick one final fight. Then you'll sit in a darkened room and decide whether to go for "blaze of glory" or just walk away into the night.

It's a labor of love, right until the moment you realise that the project and most everyone else, could not give a shit about you and what you've sacrificed for it. You've sacrificed so much but the returns will diminish and the "sysop" bit will mean less and less emotionally and intellectually.

Oh and Jimbo Wales is making money hand over fist because of WP while you get nothing.

One day, you'll wake up and realise that what seems like cynicism or vindictiveness on my part today, is nothing more that the unvarnished truth, the red pill that most of us here took some time ago.

Um, a quote from the refrain of a Devo song ("Whip It") pertaining to the delete closure of an article on a wiki that dealt in BDSM? Proof that punning is not one of the areas of expertise that is required of Admins (shame, I could be a 'Crat on that basis!)?

It does suggest a rather enthusiastic endorsement of the deletion by the closing admin, inconsistent with impartiality.

Well, the idea that something as big as Wikipedia wouldn't profit someone somewhere somehow is extremely naive. It gets hundreds of millions of pageviews a move, that's power nowadays. That's like expecting no one at PBS to have a salary, and if they do, that it means watching PBS is somehow evil. It's just unrealistic. I'm not saying Jimbo is a great guy and 100% ethical, but it doesn't really matter... I enjoy editing for its own sake (although I do actually make something from it, an free weekly here prints articles I write on local history, after I let Wikipedians copy and style edit them for a few months). The fact that I can freely sell my work on Wikipedia, or take it anywhere I want, makes it hard to buy that I'm just some slave working on Wikipedia's farm. I use the resources he provides to do what I want to do anyway.

The Wipipedia thing pretty obviously is just me enforcing agreed-upon policy rules, not pushing a POV. My personal opinion on bondage, Wikis, and Bondage Wikis in general is never stated or implied in that AFD, all that's there is my opinion on verifiability, neutrality (and later, sockpuppet) policy. But the fact that you have to dig through my contribs is pretty telling... you can't reply to what I've said here?

PBS people work for a salary. They definitely don't give their services for free because what they're doing is "for the greater good of humanity" even if they might believe it.

You do work for nothing. Or rather you're working to make Jimbo wealthy all over again.



I'm sure you will continue, but it only lasts so long until you're burnt out and cynical about the whole enterprise. The question is: how long before you realise that its less-time consuming and more cost-effective to create your own wiki, invite a few trusted collaborators and produce quality articles with no time wasted shoveling shit against the tide?

I would find that incredibly unrewarding... an isolated Wiki somewhere with a few readers? That's not what I enjoy about editing. I enjoy articles I am interested in getting lots of edits, with ideas and improvements a circle of trusted collaborators would never come up with. Wikipedia has a critical mass of editors, which means tens of thousands of then... it's not always pretty, but I can't ever see myself working on a Wiki that gets 20 edits a day. I might as well just be blogging. The centrality of Wikipedia is a major reason it's worthwhile.

This is an argument that would suggest a moderate and balanced approach to editing. It is belied by your 43,000 edits to WP. You should be able to understand why this level of activity might be seen as "cultish" and would make one wonder if it is truly maintained by something other than the enjoyment of writing articles. It might not be a God-King worship of Mr. Wales, that would be so 2004, but it doesn't seem that healthy.

Wow, five months later and you're still making the same arguments? This debate has been had out, and you lost where it actually mattered... all the Runcorn accounts are still blocked and even their one-time defenders now mostly admit they were probably all the same person. I'm not going to rehash things here, it's already settled where it matters.

It's funny, you know, I have more criticism of the Wikimedia foundation, and the current culture and practices of Wikipedia than quite probably any other admin on Wikipedia. And all you can do is try to insult me, dig things up to use against me?

This is probably why this site isn't taken very seriously. If Wikipedia is a cult of Jimbo, WR seems to be a cult of "Anti-Jimbo". Ultimately worshiping an idol, and obsessing over burning the idol... are just two sides of the same coin. Anyone here who doesn't just fixate on Jimbo seems to seen as an enemy... that's pretty cultish.

If anyone has replies to my actual comment at the top of this page, not about Jimbo, AFDs I commented in 6 months ago, etc. I will be happy to reply. Otherwise... this is getting silly.

Which is why the situation will continue to fester, no?


Tit for tat, perhaps? People want to insult you because you insult them, etc.?


Let's try to be fair about this... One has to assume that most people here are "anti-Wikipedia," and IMO it's almost impossible to be pro-Jimbo and anti-WP at the same time. For such people it's like saying the dictator of Country X is a "really good guy," but the people of Country X are all a bunch of bastards. It just doesn't work as an ideology. However, it's quite possible, perhaps even somewhat common, to be pro-WP and anti-Jimbo.


Hey, silly is my middle name!

So, you're referring to the comment that two hours of admin work - which would presumably mean "scut-work," because interesting admin work wouldn't be outsourced - is a valuable commodity. I don't think anyone is disputing that, are they? But if people are going to start openly trading "admin work credits" on WP, that's at least something that should be remarked upon. In the absence of currency, insular communities often create their own internal economies - in this case a barter economy, but how long until we start seeing WoW-like "gold farming," or things of that nature? Or are you saying that could never happen?

I think the idea of trading admin work hour credits (or whatever) is largely restricted to that one guy, Ryan. He's made offers like that before. Despite occasional predictions along the lines of what you mention (there used to be a whole page for this, that never got much interest) the idea of trading admin work hours never has caught on.

As for "farming", I don't know that there's much of a monetary market for admin work exactly... it's kind of like trading chores as kids. You might devise an elaborate system for it, but you probably aren't going to spend your allowance hiring some guy from the classifieds to do the dishes in your place.

I'm not fixated with Jimbo and many people here are not fixated with Jimbo. Jimbo is a symptom not the disease. I don't think Jimbo is that important - if he dropped dead tomorrow, it would not change my opinion of the real damage that Wikipedia is causing.

The only thing pretty cultish is the idea that having 43,000 edits, you are not obsessed with Wikipedia and not indulging a psychological need.

I wouldn't even say Jimbo is a "symptom." The simple fact is, the media demands that organizations like Wikipedia have a public face, and Jimbo is the public face. He's proven that he can handle it, too, for good or ill... I mean, who else is going to be the public face of WP? Erik Moeller? Florence? Dave Gerard? Gary Weiss? (Now, if Mr. Marsh had said we were "fixated" on Gary Weiss to a degree far surpassing his overall significance, then you'd be on to something!)

Here's what might be a good analogy: Remember when there was a huge controversy over the "colorization" of old black & white movies? That was being done by TBS and TNT, both run by Ted Turner. So, the media's story was that Ted Turner was colorizing the movies, and that it was all his idea, etc., almost as if he was personally going in there with a bunch of magic markers and applying the colors himself. That's just how the media likes to present things, and it's acceptable as long as the "face-person" really is in charge, or bears some degree of responsibility (such as being the co-founder of the Big Website, etc.).

Like it or not, being the face-man does give Jimbo certain rights, privileges, and yes, powers that the rest of WP doesn't have. Maybe we've exaggerated the nature and scope of those rights and powers, but that doesn't mean they don't exist... Besides, the media is part of our intended audience, and what works for them ought to work for us too. (Within reason.)

The whole trading labor is like if people were paid to do admin tasks. Admins aren't and they can do as little work as they want. They just gotta make sure not to screw up big and it's fine--they can do nothing but sit on their account and post the secret contents of deleted articles to other websites.

On another subject, I hate watching things in black and white. I also think TV is unwatchable on anything less than 20 inches. My TV is twice that size, though.

Nobody has ever replied seriously to the arguments. You're right - the argument is lost where it matters because those who did the blocks are deliberately deaf. However, you're quite wrong to say that even their one-time defenders now mostly admit they were probably all the same person. Didn't you read the debates on ANI or on Wikiquote? Of course you can't post any evidence because there isn't any that will stand up to scrutiny.

To get back on topic: I've seen similar organised efforts on the mailing list. Someone was discussing setting up a 'chore wheel' to co ordinate labour... it creeped me out a little, for a such a 'voluntary' organisation they're sure steeped in bureaucracy and talk of 'duty', 'responsibility' etc.

Well said, Guy. Although, it's actually worse than being "deliberately deaf". Being merely deaf to a discussion isn't actually removing comments, closing up the discussion before it ever has a chance of becoming an honest discussion. And the deaf don't make up allegations of "spewing venom" about Jews without evidence.

I snipe at Jimbo because I enjoy it. If someone other than Jimbo finally provides a better target to do that, I'll be the first to sign up.



Greg

Just so I understand, w.marsh, you are posting seed articles on Wikipedia, then let other editors improve them, then you copy them out of Wikipedia, submit them to an editor of a "free weekly", no?

Could you show us an example of how the publisher is attributing copyright under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License? And, is the publisher paying you in any way for having originated or delivered the articles to them?

This should be interesting.

Indeed!

Presumably this is the Louisville_Eccentric_Observer? I thought that was the only such paper in town... I just searched their website on the word "Wikipedia" and didn't find much about local history in the results page. Admittedly, this methodology was highly non-scientific...

Oh, and be careful you don't "out" yourself! That's yet more headache we don't need.

Somey, we have another jinx on the boards! I was just going to make rebuttal to the PBS analogy that w.marsh attempted. It would be an apt analogy if PBS were co-founded by Ted Turner, Ted Turner still sat on the PBS board of directors, and Ted Turner had a special "veto" status within PBS' American programming choices. If that were the actual situation, I think people WOULD complain that their volunteer time and donation dollars going to PBS were not well-spent.

That's why some people here focus on Jimbo Wales, w.marsh. He is the Ted Turner of PBS (who doesn't exist, since it wouldn't be tolerated for 2 minutes in the offline world).

Come back to us with another example -- one where a successful business person or enterprise morphs off a non-profit institution while continuing to work in generally the same line of business as that non-profit's specialty.

You'll note that Andrew Carnegie didn't spin off a non-profit that brought steel to Africa -- he built libraries in small communities. You'll note that Edsel Ford didn't spin off a non-profit that brought automobiles to Africa -- he promoted democracy and reduced poverty. You'll note that Bill Gates didn't spin off a non-profit that brought Office suite applications to Africa -- he is enhancing healthcare and education while fighting poverty.

Jimmy Wales morphed off a non-profit from Bomis/Nupedia, while maintaining his stronghold in wikis through Wikicities/Wikia. He hasn't given up on either half -- which means he may be the only example we can think of, of a Board member of a non-profit who stands to personally profit from the success and reputation of that non-profit. It would be like the head of the Red Cross also being the president of a for-profit disaster-relief materials company. That wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Yes as long as you're writing piddly articles about local history you'll be fine. One day though, you're going to read an article about something you care about and know something about and might have some importance and general interest. It will be flat wrong and offensive to you, and you won't be allowed to change it. Then you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the organization you've helped build is being controlled by bad people who use suckers like you to spread their warped messages.