Instructions. Read the following sample of text:


Scoring. If you can read that without throwing up a little in your mouth, then you may be showing signs of either one or both of the following two conditions:

1. They didn't teach Subtext Reading in the grammar school out of which you flunked.
2. Incipient Wikipedism (IW).

In either of these cases you should seek appropriate professional help immediately.

Jon

The one professional who recently offered to help me abruptly vanished into the aether, a bare 10 hours after I took him up on his offer to be of help.

NB. By way of averting a potential misunderstanding, "appropriate professional help" was not intended to recommend the services of a Moscovian Masseuse (MM) — though of course there's nothing wrong with that if you can arrange the funding.

Jon

It would probably be more economical to browse Barnes & Noble for a book on how to tickle oneself. I confess that self-tickling has never worked very well for me.

I find the term Wikipediot offensive. Do we call you a Wikipedia Repuker? Incivility like this is why Wikipedia Review does not have a good reputation.

Reviewers have been called worse. A "Wikipediot" is a Wikipedian who simply does not get it (that is, all the issues this Review has brought up since its inception) and continues to be stubborn and vicious in their methods.

It's very difficult to reason with unreasonable people. The Wikipedians who eventually do get it usually end up leaving WP knowing they can do little to save it. They are not "Wikipediots."

Repuker doesn't flow nicely, but nice try.

WankeRs might work better, and would also have the advantage of reminding me of the time that Phil Collins managed to say it about 20 times on prime time USA TV in Miami Vice because the networks had never heard the word.

Any better offers?

Boudica, we'll show some decency once the Wikipediots wake up and realize the "shocking" fact that people get angry. The Golden Rule requires reciprocity, remember.

Civility, in the sense of the term as abused by the cabalista, ended when we were six. People are going to be rude when you are rude to them and publish defamatory content. As much as I wish for Jimbo to actually actively enforce a solid BLP proposal, history assures us that that this will just be another fluke like the rest of those proposals.

What are you nattering about? Seriously?

If you have a problem with what I said, I have a problem with your approach to this matter.

If you have a problem with what Jimbo said, ditto.

If you want to fault the project for not actually doing these things yet, that's fine, but it would be ever so helpful if you just said what you meant instead of being excessively clever. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

If in article is in violation of WP:BLP, the subject should take it to ArbCom, rather than trying to coerce Wikipedia administrators by action outside of Wikipedia processes, which is grounds for banning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ban...policy#Coercion

What Jimbo said would be great if he meant it and it was actually acted upon consistently.

I prefer the term "wikipedophile"- meant in a general, derogatory mocking sense rather than implying paedo-ism.

When BLP victims do complain, they are harassed off the site as Brandt and ColScott were. They don't care about being banned as they already are. They are, by WP definition, "outlaws" and as the saying goes:

"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

The BLP policy does not go far enough to protect living people or their families. An Opt-Out policy would be the best step in the right direction.

Let's just not bother with the long list of reasons why you are being amazingly provocative with your naive comments.

Instead, imagine you are a reader of Wikipedia who has never edited. You find something about you that is offensive. With no knowledge of Wikipedia or its interface or how it is structured - it is just a web site - come back here with a list of clicks that a novice user should use to work out what they are supposed to do.

Once you've listed it out, we'll check it for whether it works. Seriously, you learn better by doing. Really try to be a dumb user as you do it. When I tried it I got stuck in loops and all sorts.

[Edit:]Remember, you don't know what OTRS or ArbCom or even admins are.

This is, in my view, a huge problem. See this essay, for example. Just starting to edit one's own article doesn't often work out well. The site has so many pages it's hard to find the relevant page that explains the OTRS process, how to comment on your own BLP, etc etc...

Brandt's coercion of Wikipedia administrators is the reason that policy exists. Wikipedia does not negotiate with terrorists.

If Brandt would simply agree never, ever to attempt to pressure a Wikipedia admin again, I am sure he could be unblocked.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should not be childish and be fighting people over their articles where libel and damage to their personal lives is possible. Need I remind you that John Seigenthaler Sr. was accused of killing Kennedy for several months? How many people read that and still think he may have done it?

Negotiating with terrorists?

Alright, who's pulling our leg.

It's a perfect example of the Wikipediot philosophy though.

This is absolutely precious. It's the Wikipediot belief system in two sentences.

Amazing.

OK. I will create a sockpuppet for the purpose of this experiment. But I will not impersonate anyone, so I will have to find something about someone else that is offensive. I will bet that I can get it removed.

No need to do it for real, just think it through.

I am confident I can achieve this and I will show it to you. But I am still puzzling over what to bet on it.

I'm not a gambling man.

I'm just curious to see if it can be done.

Doing so won't be hard, which is the problem.

You'll be able to get it removed, easily, because you know what to look for ("Oh, okay, here on this flag on the talk page there's a link to something called the "BLP noticeboard" - let's check that out"), but it wouldn't be as easy for a random subject. Well, sometimes it would, since if they remove it themselves there's an at least reasonable possibility that nobody will revert them. But all of this ignores the real problem, which is the ease with which you'll be able to find "something about someone else that is offensive".

If you can show that an innocent user of Wikipedia can easily work out how to get an article removed and appropriately protected if necessary, then you do not have to sell your soul to Wikipedia Review.

[imgx]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Devil-goat.jpg[/imgx]

What are you nattering about? Seriously?

I will be among the first to admit that the use of language in Jon's posts can at times be somewhat obscure and indirect, but he can also be quite clear and direct when he chooses to be. The post you quote above falls in the latter category. Perhaps you are confused by the lack of derisive epithets, like A MAJOR ASSHOLE?

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way"?? Of just what, exactly?? Jon has no more chance of ending The Wikipedia Follies by fiat than I have of stopping the rotation of the Earth with my mind. I have no reason whatever to suspect that he harbors any delusions in that regard. As to any delusions that you harbor, I will leave that to those with the appropriate professional credentials.

No offense, Lar, I would not MichiGoose a fellow MichiGander — well, not for what you said this time — but I needed to quote your set-up for the sake of citing Jimbo in context.

Jon

To be fair, you DO need to have some background knowledge to see anything wrong with Jimbo's statement. For instance, you probably need to realize that he does not actually care about doing those things.

√ Check

By way of an exorcise in Subtext Reading interested WikiRepukers might try running through the text line by line, striking out the items that will never happen — cuz y'know, they're hard, and that would make Cyclopedia Ridin' not so fun at all, hell-mets or otherwise — and underlining the items that are easy to do, like all those variations on Courtesy Blanking and De-Trollifying Wikipedia Hysteries. What you will then have left, Watson, in relief, as it were, is what Professor Jimbo Moriarty always intended to do from the start.

Jon

Will Jimbo
"walk his talk"?. It takes leaders to do that, and Jimbo ain't got it. He's waiting for the offer!

Duck Test —

When It Comes To Walking The Talk,
Jimbo's Got It Down In How To Duck.

Jon

As usual, you have nothing to say. But have you ever, no seriously, ever, considered that we do get it? And by getting it, we try not to use played out adages? Or does that sting like a bee? Perhaps you may actually get is that we 'get it' have a keen understanding, but just don't care about you. If it wasn't for the 'quote function' and age old adages, you would be of little value. Kidding, yer of no value.

Fair 'nuff. ... (you can tell a michigander... you just can't tell him (or her) much)




Na... that wasn't the confusing part.

Of moving the discussion forward around here. I harbor no delusions about whether Jon might be able to effect much change by direct contributions at Wikipedia itself. As for whatever delusions you yourself harbor? I have no idea, and no interest. I'm not sure I actually care enough about your views to make an assessment of their specific nature.

Lar, why do you bother? Jon has never had anything to say except for emoticons and quips from tv shows. And yeah, we're not welcome here, but seriously, there are those of use who can actually better WP than Jon. I've never seen an original thought in his head, but a lot of 'quote functions' and rhetoric.

You've had seven years to "better WP". Why is it still a steaming pile of fail?

'tow, I don't agree, although I appreciate the support.

While sometimes I find Jon a bit repetitive and sometimes a bit (!!) impenetrable, I think he does have a fair few things to say that are worth listening to... By the way, have you actually read some of the articles he was working on before he left? You might be quite surprised. More generally I think it's important to understand even if one doesn't agree. And, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Jon says.

I'm not here to "feel welcomed", per se, but to listen and learn... (see my sig... and now I'm being repetitive )



I'm not sure I'd characterise it as completely without value. But we may differ on that view. (see my sig... and now I'm being repetitive)

It's still useful for popular culture. I used WP the other day to look up the details of an episode of The Twilight Zone that came up in discussions with a journalist from NPR.

Before he left? Lar, your every attempt at rising out of the Wikipedia muck leaves you deeper in it, such as this not-so-subtle attempt to reframe history. I'm no particular friend of Jon, but saying he "left" is like saying that Marie Antoinette got a haircut. Sheesh.

Addendum: For the history-impaired, I'll add this choice quote:

The big issue with Jon Awbrey, at least in this context, is that he leaves too much for the reader to figure out on his/her own. Sometimes it's gratifying, sometimes it's infuriating, and it has different effects on different people.

This is a classic example. Essentially, he's saying that the quote from Jimbo on WikiEN-L is "puke-inducing," which it would be, for someone who has concluded (as he has) that Wikipedia is a Very Bad Thing, and that Jimbo either intended it that way from the beginning, or decided at some point (after figuring out what he'd done) that the long-range implications of the website were of no concern to him.

Let's analyze the quote in more detail.


The "effort" required to do this would, on the surface, be the insertion of anywhere from 6 to 10 lines into a text file. What he's really saying is that someone should bring it up "on wiki," where there will be a lengthy discussion with the goal of achieving "consensus," with Jimbo all the while knowing that the "proposal" will fail.

Does Jimbo have the power to impose this solution unilaterally? Some say yes, some say no - and that's probably just how Jimbo likes it. When he wants to look good while doing nothing, he has limited power; if he wants to look good while doing something, he's the "sole founder" and ultimate arbiter of whatever happens.


A case in point. This sounds reasonable and quite nice, doesn't it? But they're empty words - Wikipedia already has a large amount of "civility" policy in place, but rather than help to achieve this goal, it simply causes the very definition of the term "civility" to become a moving target. Of course Wikipedia will always be rife with conflict - that's part of the base concept. There's no way to prevent it, period.


Note how he doesn't mention preventative measures. Admittedly, WP is planning to eventually, someday, pretty much, kinda-sorta implement "flagged revisions." But Jimbo has always been very supportive of "open," anonymous editing by AnonIP's. He also knows that vandal-fighting is a way for people to "get involved" that doesn't require any real editorial or subject-matter expertise, so he doesn't want to cut off that particular source of new recruits. If anything, he prefers those kinds of new recruits, because they tend to be more malleable and "eager to please."


Now, this is presumably what Mr. Awbrey means when he suggests that the entire quote is likely to bring about some degree of nausea in the reader. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that Jimbo is deliberately lying, i.e., that he actually wants to do something negative and hateful for the world that should make WP'ers ashamed to be a part of it, and is saying the opposite simply because it sounds better. So despite the nausea, I say we let Jimbo say things like this without undue criticism, if it really makes him happy.


And this, in fact, is the crux of the matter. Jimbo knows very well they cannot, and will never be able to, avoid harm! This is the nature of the Wikibeast - like any other multi-purpose tool, it can be used for building, fixing, hurting, or destroying. I could go on about this for pages and pages, but it can all be summed up in a simple statement: One man's harm is another man's conception of justice.

I'm not saying they should forget about preventative measures, but such measures would be mostly for the benefit of Wikipedians, who have long been stressed by external threats and criticism that could easily be prevented with a few simple software adjustments and a new feature or two.

But the only effective way for Wikipedia to ameliorate the harm it causes to others is to take effective action when the harm is brought to their attention - and in the case of BLP's, that means taking the subject's word for it that he or she is, in fact, being harmed, and deleting articles if the subject justifiably requests it. And that's something they've all steadfastly refused to do, isn't it?

That's my experience. The members of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design steadfastly refused to cease and desist from doing harm, and instead compounded the harm.

Jes, like I kip splaining to you, Lucy, reports of my originality are greatly exaggerated.

But don't tell me, tell them.

Bye for a while, till you get out of Wiki-Pampersâ„¢.

Jon

You're right. I erred. I think actually he hasn't actually "left"...

Correct. He tunneled underground.

Oh good grief!

I don't really know whether it's merely a sad indictment of post 911 America, that people feel the need to engage in such theatricality as to decry anyone, from the burger bopper who short changes them at the drive thru window, to the likes of Brandt engaging in coercion, as a terrorist, or whether its just evidence that Wikipedia has reached stage 3 of the BITE model of Cult behavior, but you Wikipedians really need to spend some quality therapy time with a qualified Lexicographer.

Such hyperbolic nonsense merely undermines your argument.

Not all anankasts are terrorists.

Finally! A Thinking Read!

Jon

Anankastic (Obsessive-Compulsive) Personality Disorder
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following:

• feelings of excessive doubt and caution;
• preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization or schedule;
• perfectionism that interferes with task completion;
• excessive conscientiousness, scrupulousness, and undue preoccupation with productivity to the exclusion of pleasure and interpersonal relationships;
• excessive pedantry and adherence to social conventions;
• rigidity and stubbornness;
• unreasonable insistence by the patient that others submit to exactly his or her way of doing things, or unreasonable reluctance to allow others to do things;
• intrusion of insistent and unwelcome thoughts or impulses.

Is that supposed to be derived from the Greek word for "Necessity"?

If so, it represents a horrible corruption of a fine old philosophical concept.

Assorted nonsense about conditionals.

Jon

I am leaving, I am leaving … but the fight-er still remains. Hmm hmm hmm.

This one goes out to D'under Toe, who I know just wubs all this old 60's stuff.

And I long to be —

Where the New York City lawyers aren't bleeding me …

Jon