http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._Review_article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neil/wr
Now on DRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
Full Version: [[Wikipedia Review]]
Didn't see this coming...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._Review_article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neil/wr
It's not up on DRV yet.
Now on DRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._Review_article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neil/wr
Now on DRV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am) 
I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:
all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist
Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...
And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. 
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:32pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am)
I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:
all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist
Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...
And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
My reason for that is not Metz being critical of Wikipedia, its him being over-critical to the point where a reader would get a strong vibe of conspiracy theorism, especially regarding Overstock (that's not to say he's wrong, though - I stayed well out of the Mantmoreland stuff)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm)
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. I believe WR runs on vBulletin.
QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:32pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am)
I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, Sceptre, that's not really workable under RS. He's hardly some guy that just bashes Wikipedia:
all "by Cade Metz" hits on Google, showing he's just a plain old tech journalist
Cade Metz on The Register, all articles That's 523 articles. His work on Wikipedia is 22 articles. Only 4% of his Register work is on Wikipedia. And that doesn't account for his non-Register work, which appears even broader...
And it's on DRV now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...ikipedia_Review
My reason for that is not Metz being critical of Wikipedia, its him being over-critical to the point where a reader would get a strong vibe of conspiracy theorism, especially regarding Overstock (that's not to say he's wrong, though - I stayed well out of the Mantmoreland stuff)
I can see people going that route, yeah. I honestly don't know if that makes him an unreliable source, though. I know there was a ton of Register bashing (but only after the Register and Metz dug into Wikipedia) but that sort of stuff is just silly. Its like if the New York Times or Sydney Morning Herald totally tore into Wikipedia in a couple of scathing articles. Would any future reporting be tainted? What about if they totally tore into Microsoft, or Disney, or Citizendium? Would their future reporting on those subjects then be suspect? Of course not...
QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm)
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. I believe WR runs on vBulletin.
I think it does.
QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm)
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is. And I think the computer it runs on is (or perhaps is not, or maybe once was) a Dell 3254 quad-core rack-mount server with 4Gb of DDR400 SDRAM.
Oh, and none of that, including the type of software it runs, is remotely relevant to our purpose here. Its inclusion seems to be either a poorly-managed remnant of a previous article or an obscure signifier of the convoluted history of WR, in which the purported admins of the ProBoards incarnation were found to be evil skinheads or something.
(This post brought to you by FireFox, Windows XP, Planar™ flat-panel monitors, and the letter 'Q'.)
Actually, I put it in there, it was never in there before.
I don't see it does any harm to mention what engine a site runs on. I do it on most of the articles I put together on websites (see, for example, Forumwarz).
I don't see it does any harm to mention what engine a site runs on. I do it on most of the articles I put together on websites (see, for example, Forumwarz).
QUOTE(gomi @ Tue 1st July 2008, 12:25pm)
QUOTE(Sceptre @ Tue 1st July 2008, 9:12am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 1st July 2008, 4:57pm)
QUOTE
The site was formerly hosted by ProBoards[4], but is now created using WordPress.
Wordpress was the blog software. I believe the forum software is Invision Power Board though I'm not certain and always forget what it is.
I believe WR runs on vBulletin.
And I think the computer it runs on is (or perhaps is not, or maybe once was) a Dell 3254 quad-core rack-mount server with 4Gb of DDR400 SDRAM.
Oh, and none of that, including the type of software it runs, is remotely relevant to our purpose here. Its inclusion seems to be either a poorly-managed remnant of previous article or an obscure signifier of the convoluted history of WR, in which the purported admins of the ProBoards incarnation were found to be evil skinheads or something.
(This post brought to you by FireFox, Windows XP, Planar™ flat-panel monitors, and the letter 'Q'.)
Yeah, and I heard the Dell 3254 once burnt its SDRAM Card …
Or was that its CO-BRA ???
Jon
I'm almost certain it runs on Invision Power Board.
Yes, it runs on IPB.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 1st July 2008, 8:23am)
I love how the Metz reference is "undesirable" because Metz has a history of being critical of Wikipedia.
to remind everyone, El Req has been used for years as a RS on WP, and even on Patrick Byrne by Gary's socks, on an article that was negative (Byrne is crazy meme) of course.
By the way, Metz's latest was not very complimentary to Byrne at all, so folks on WP believing that Metz is a shill for Overstock are about as right about that as they were right in believing David Gerard's still not-held-accountable banning of at least 1 (moi) and others for being imaginary shills for Overstock. Talk about a conspiracy theory, lol.
How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.
QUOTE(prospero @ Tue 1st July 2008, 5:28pm)
How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.
who cares? what "power" those 2 clowns held is gone.
QUOTE(cyofee @ Tue 1st July 2008, 6:25pm)
Yes, it runs on IPB.
Fixed now.
I'm disappointed that he didn't use any material from Blissy's version.
QUOTE(prospero @ Tue 1st July 2008, 6:28pm)
How long before Slim and the gang show up? Like I said on AN, you can rest assured that she and MONGO are going to pitch a fit over this one.
They'll be livid that WR's stalking of her and the claims about her true identity (which apparently are false but she stil wants them covered up) aren't mentioned.
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 1st July 2008, 1:58pm)
I'm not. Here's the text of the Wikipedia Mail I just sent to Neil:QUOTE
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 10:54pm)
QUOTE
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
Hersch, you're gonna need RS for those claims ;-). When in WP....
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 7:54pm)
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 1st July 2008, 1:58pm)
I'm not. Here's the text of the Wikipedia Mail I just sent to Neil:QUOTE
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
It's about time...and space...it surely is.
Nice job, Neil; about a site that really does quite a few good things and, in fact, has even done a few great things. Time tested for intelligent rants and good solid feedback from all walks of life, I say...
it's time to spread the good news. I say yes.
Now back to where I best serve my family, friends, and everyone else in the free world.
There's nothing about how the place is run by dangerous trolls such as WQ bureaucrats, WP checkusers and even WMF stewards.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 11:54pm)
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I could have read that here.
I can't really add stuff without a reference in a reliable source (ie, not WR), or it'll get thrown out. Hamstrung by the system, I'm afraid.
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:16am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 11:54pm)
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I could have read that here.
I can't really add stuff without a reference in a reliable source (ie, not WR), or it'll get thrown out. Hamstrung by the system, I'm afraid.
Fair enough. Just think what would be added about us if reliable third party sources weren't required.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:30am)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:16am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 11:54pm)
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I could have read that here.
I can't really add stuff without a reference in a reliable source (ie, not WR), or it'll get thrown out. Hamstrung by the system, I'm afraid.
Fair enough. Just think what would be added about us if reliable third party sources weren't required.
The statement that was up while the site was down was a nice succinct statement of what we are (or rather should be) about. If that could be resurrected, it could stand as a primary source.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:33am)
The statement that was up while the site was down was a nice succinct statement of what we are (or rather should be) about. If that could be resurrected, it could stand as a primary source.
Ooh, good idea. It certainly could - is that page hosted anywhere while the site is up?
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 5:33am)
The statement that was up while the site was down was a nice succinct statement of what we are (or rather should be) about. If that could be resurrected, it could stand as a primary source.
From the Windows Live Cache...
WR: NOT
Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.
Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:30am)
Just think what would be added about us if reliable third party sources weren't required.
You don't have to think - just read the ED article on us (or, rather, don't).
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 11:00am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 5:33am)
The statement that was up while the site was down was a nice succinct statement of what we are (or rather should be) about. If that could be resurrected, it could stand as a primary source.
From the Windows Live Cache...
WR: NOT
Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.
Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...
Thanks Moulton - is that link stable?
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:18am)
Thanks Moulton - is that link stable?
Probably not. It's the cached page from the Windows Live Search Engine.
If Somey doesn't care to provide a permanent link to it, I could archive it to a stable university server for you.
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:18am)
Thanks Moulton - is that link stable?
A stable link has been preserved at:
http://www.webcitation.org/5Z0pjEk6t
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:14am)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 7:18am)
Thanks Moulton - is that link stable?
A stable link has been preserved at:http://www.webcitation.org/5Z0pjEk6t
Here it is without the Windows Live Cache Header and with the embedded YouTube video...
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 2:16am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 11:54pm)
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I could have read that here.
I can't really add stuff without a reference in a reliable source (ie, not WR), or it'll get thrown out. Hamstrung by the system, I'm afraid.
Ironically, I think that I have a good RS for you:
QUOTE
"..Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy...<ref> De Braeckeleer, Ludwig, "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services," Ohmynews, 7-26-2007 [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1]</ref>
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 3:46pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 2:16am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 1st July 2008, 11:54pm)
Hi, Neil,
I've taken a look at your draft article on the Wikipedia Review, and I think you've done a good job. There are, however, some suggestions I would make, regarding mention of notable activities at the Review: first, that the Review focusses much attention on allegations of Conflict of Interest on the part of prominent Wikipedia editors, and has attempted to produce evidence to support these allegations (a practice that critics of the Review refer to as "outing.") Secondly, that there is much analysis and criticism of ArbCom decisions and practices. More generally, it would be fair to say that the Review alleges a pattern of disregard, on the part of Wikipedia, for its own policies, such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT.
Regards,
Herschelkrustofsky
Member of the WR staff
I could have read that here.
I can't really add stuff without a reference in a reliable source (ie, not WR), or it'll get thrown out. Hamstrung by the system, I'm afraid.
Ironically, I think that I have a good RS for you:
QUOTE
"..Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy...<ref> De Braeckeleer, Ludwig, "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services," Ohmynews, 7-26-2007 [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1]</ref>
I changed it to "awesome member" because I couldn't think of anything else. Thanks for the link, I was intially dubious ohmynews was a blog, but it's a fact-checked newspaper, according to OhmyNews International. Added to the article.
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 1st July 2008, 1:58pm)
It should also link to http://wikipediacritic.proboards47.com/index.cgi then
I noticed that board allows people to edit their post title as well as message. Malber changed his "can I be admin?" to a discussion on how he fears the autistic. http://wikipediacritic.proboards47.com/ind...thread=4&page=1 Not even Blissyu2 posts there anymore. The last post Blissyu2 made was http://wikipediacritic.proboards47.com/ind...thread=1&page=1
Does this site have any "reliable sources"? As those will end up what get used. The article can use any information people know of, but it'll be called original research. Even provable things like the timing between a thread here and soon after, someone on wikipedia notices and fixes a problem because it was reported here would probably not end up there, either.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:12am)
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
I agree with Bobby. I do not see this as a good development. The promotional aspect is nice for now and it does reach an especially receptive audience. But having a Wikipedia article means being subjected forever to the whims of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is only a matter of time before a drunken 22 year old admin or self-appointed internet detective demand that we remove or manipulate content from our site as quid pro quo for avoiding some kind of unjustified editorial treatment of the article.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:39am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:12am)
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
I agree with Bobby. I do not see this as a good development. The promotional aspect is nice for now and it does reach an especially receptive audience. But having a Wikipedia article means being subjected forever to the whims of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is only a matter of time before a drunken 22 year old admin or self-appointed internet detective demand that we remove or manipulate content from our site as quid pro quo for avoiding some kind of unjustified editorial treatment of the article.
That would be an amazingly stupid thing for someone to try to do. The shitstorm and drama that would unleash would be astounding.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 12:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:39am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:12am)
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
I agree with Bobby. I do not see this as a good development. The promotional aspect is nice for now and it does reach an especially receptive audience. But having a Wikipedia article means being subjected forever to the whims of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is only a matter of time before a drunken 22 year old admin or self-appointed internet detective demand that we remove or manipulate content from our site as quid pro quo for avoiding some kind of unjustified editorial treatment of the article.
That would be an amazingly stupid thing for someone to try to do. The shitstorm and drama that would unleash would be astounding.
Don't encourage them.
Jon
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:55am)
That would be an amazingly stupid thing for someone to try to do. The shitstorm and drama that would unleash would be astounding.
As if they have ever shown any disinclination toward shitstorms and drama.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:00am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 12:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:39am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:12am)
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
I agree with Bobby. I do not see this as a good development. The promotional aspect is nice for now and it does reach an especially receptive audience. But having a Wikipedia article means being subjected forever to the whims of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is only a matter of time before a drunken 22 year old admin or self-appointed internet detective demand that we remove or manipulate content from our site as quid pro quo for avoiding some kind of unjustified editorial treatment of the article.
That would be an amazingly stupid thing for someone to try to do. The shitstorm and drama that would unleash would be astounding.
Don't encourage them.
Don't worry, I'm not, same as I'm not touching that DRV for possible COI reasons, or even that active this week aside from some image stuff on commons. My creative juices are low and I'm waiting for some stuff to go through anyway that I want to work on.
My point was just that if someone tried that, whoever did it would be in for a world of shit from multiple angles (and I'd feel especially bad for any simps that made the mistake of backing that kind of action, especially from an official standpoint, like Arbcom, given how things are now).
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 1:05pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:00am)
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 12:55pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:39am)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:12am)
It's a good article, but I must admit I've never been that crazy about WR having an article on Wikipedia. Who needs the headache that come from these attractive nuisances called articles? No member here should feel it necessary to campaign for this article; personally, I hope you campaign against it, but I speak only for myself.
I agree with Bobby. I do not see this as a good development. The promotional aspect is nice for now and it does reach an especially receptive audience. But having a Wikipedia article means being subjected forever to the whims of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is only a matter of time before a drunken 22 year old admin or self-appointed internet detective demand that we remove or manipulate content from our site as quid pro quo for avoiding some kind of unjustified editorial treatment of the article.
That would be an amazingly stupid thing for someone to try to do. The shitstorm and drama that would unleash would be astounding.
Don't encourage them.
Don't worry, I'm not, same as I'm not touching that DRV for possible COI reasons, or even that active this week aside from some image stuff on commons. My creative juices are low and I'm waiting for some stuff to go through anyway that I want to work on.
My point was just that if someone tried that, whoever did it would be in for a world of shit from multiple angles (and I'd feel especially bad for any simps that made the mistake of backing that kind of action, especially from an official standpoint, like Arbcom, given how things are now).
That's kinda what I meant by encouraging them.
Jon
Oddly enough, having an article on the English Wikipedia about Wikipedia Review allows those of following (or even doing) original research on Wikipedia as a dysfunctional social networking site to vector our findings into the pages of the English Wikipedia.
Interesting edits on Neil's draft are underway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223127916
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223127916
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 8:09am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 3:46pm)
Ironically, I think that I have a good RS for you:
QUOTE
"..Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy...<ref> De Braeckeleer, Ludwig, "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services," Ohmynews, 7-26-2007 [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1]</ref>
Thanks for the link, I was intially dubious ohmynews was a blog, but it's a fact-checked newspaper, according to OhmyNews International. Added to the article.
QUOTE(Rootology @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 9:04pm)
Interesting edits on Neil's draft are underway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=223127916
And mostly reverted. I know the rules, and am playing by them.
Famous Last Words
I know the rules, and am playing by them.
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 5:44pm)
I know the rules, and am playing by them.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 10:50pm)
Famous Last Words
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 5:44pm)
I know the rules, and am playing by them.
What do you forsee, o great legilimens?
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 5:13pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 8:09am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 3:46pm)
Ironically, I think that I have a good RS for you:
QUOTE
"..Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy...<ref> De Braeckeleer, Ludwig, "Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services," Ohmynews, 7-26-2007 [http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1]</ref>
Thanks for the link, I was intially dubious ohmynews was a blog, but it's a fact-checked newspaper, according to OhmyNews International. Added to the article.
That's what is so strange, Slim has been incredibly silent on this and other matters where one would expect her to at least send out Crum to meatpuppet a bit. I wonder what she's up to?
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 6:03pm)
What do you forsee, o great legilimens?
Dunno what Jon is gonna predict, but I predict drama.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 4:39pm)
QUOTE(Neil @ Wed 2nd July 2008, 6:03pm)
What do you forsee, o great legilimens?
... I predict drama.And I predict that the sun will continue to rise in the east.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.