Reference (static as of right now) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ersian_problems

After apparently getting repelled by anti-kook forces in her attempt to drive off ScienceApologist, Elonka has redirected her endless rage against people who actually went to college for more than just one year before failing out, and have some level of expertise in what they talk about at ChrisO, who is a phD historian editing in his field of expertise. Because of lunatic Iranian Nationalists and Ancient Hebrew apologists (I shit you not - this is about things done in 600 BC) being opposed to an accurate picture of history, ChrisO's historically accurate edits are opposed by both Iranian ex-pats and "Israel can do no wrong" agenda editors, in addition to Elonka's continuing crusade against anyone who knows something she doesn't.

Worth reading.



Oh, and hi.




More offensive, of course, is JayJG's statement that ChrisO protecting a page in his userspace is "The use of admin tools (protecting the page twice) in an edit dispute would seem to make it an AN/I issue."

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

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

Welcome to WR Hipocrite

Well, hi there Welcome to Wikipedia Review.

I .. uh .. think we've met before. If I'm not mistaken, it related to my posting on WR

Wow. Deja vu all over again. Welcome hipocrite

I thought you didn't like WR. Nevertheless, of course, welcome to the forum.

Oh, and it appears that everyone in that thread is appropriately ignoring Jayjg's sniping. I'm not sure if it's ok for an admin to protect a subpage in their userspace or not, but it doesn't really bother me too much.

Just a guess, but I think that might be what his WR username refers to.

I think that was also his former account name. But yeah, it sure is hypocritical...

The response to lunatics here has improved dramatically whilst the response to lunatics there has devolved at nearly an equivalent rate. Both this site and that site appear to be at about equal value to society at current.

We could do a poll: How long before the kooks will drive away all the regular editors with scholarly background?

My opinion is that if nothing changes it will be less than a year.

Your assessment of the situation clearly does not match the actual situation.

And a PhD does not mean that you aren't biased, credible, or the rest. It just means that some school decided to award you a degree based on whatever standard they put forth, or lack thereof.

And Wikipedia is not about "truth", it is about references and consensus, and if consensus does not agree that his version is truth, then he cannot send people to whine and bitch for him on off Wiki message boards until he gets his way.

So your statement is that ChrisO is not using sources and that JayJG and the Iranian Nationalists are? You've got to be smoking some crazy weed. Why don't you start with [[Siege of Doriskos]].

No, not even close.

My statement was that ChrisO was violating the rules of consensus by acting as if he had the truth and that his POV is the only one that should be considered, ignores any possible working with others, and seeks to posit his "degree" as some how giving him the right to claim whatever he wants.

In the critical world, you have to prove yourself, go through review, and the rest. Instead, he wants to ignore any of that and just push his own interpretation. That is not what Wikipedia is. That is not what Academia is.

That's not what he's doing. He is engaging of a review of a series hoaxes perpetuated by individuals who do not cite their sources and make things up of whole cloth. I see no evidence that he has relied on his degree to claim whatever he wants - you appear to have confused him and his psycotic adversaries. In a perfect world, you would cite evidence that what you posit is true, but I am certain you will not - instead it appears that you, like Elonka, are opposed to all experts, and are hoping without any real evidence gathering that this expert has fallen into the standard expert-trap of assuming that the idiots he is interacting with on Wikipedia are minimally versed in the subject matter they profess to write an encyclopedia on. Of course, he's not - but if you throw enough shit on the wall, eventually eveything smells.

I'd say "crazy" doesn't even begin to describe the aforementioned weed...

Not only does Wikipedia have absolutely nothing to do with "Academia" whatsoever, there's nothing "critical" about it, either. But even if you accept that ChrisO is biased towards a particular "interpretation," which I don't, it isn't simply a matter of sources and references. It's been shown time and time again that sources and their usage can be manipulated to serve a particular agenda, and not only in terms of promoting them or questioning their "reliability," but also by generating them directly.

Face it, Ottava - there is simply no way that Wikipedia, or any other publicly-editable website, can produce a "neutral," properly-sourced version of a general-info piece on a highly-controversial topic. For that you have to bring in neutral people to begin with, preferably with some degree of expertise both in the subject and in writing in an unbiased way, and then keep everyone else out. But they're obviously not going to be doing that any time soon, are they?

By "engaging in a review" you mean using his subspace in order to push his POV instead of taking it to an appropriate forum to actually see what the community says about it?

That is definitely not consensus building.



Somey, I was refering to ChrisO's actions as a holder of a PhD and that at no time would being part of academia ever legitimize such an approach, therefore, the PhD cannot be used to legitimize said course of action.



I never said they could.

Instead, I said the opposite - consensus much be reached. Consensus does not mean neutral (quite the opposite). Instead, this user wants to posit his "neutral" and "truthful" version and ignore the consensus of other users.

I vote for 2006. Definitely 2006.

This, by the way, is why I quit Wikipedia. Consensus to be wrong was, in the bad old days, ignored. Now it's not, because "community" trumps "encyclopedia."

What does "consensus building" have to do with an informal review of biased sources? If he wants to post evidence and links in a user subpage, let him. It's just a courtesy to let people see what he's doing, looks like to me. But sure enough, heavily-biased people like you are bashing him for it!


The course of action doesn't require "legitimacy," only the sources themselves, and the article itself. Mr. Hipocrite is simply making the point that ChrisO (T-C-L-K-R-D) has expertise in the subject matter - like you yourself suggest, the Ph.D. is merely a symbol. Society generally recognizes that particular symbol as having value, though, and so most people probably would consider such a person to be more qualified than most to judge the veracity of secondary sources, with or without input or interference from other Wikipediots.


Well then, perhaps you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Wikipedia, then? That at least two of the "five pillars" actually contradict each other?

So why even participate at all?

indeed. just as wikipeds are aware that NYBrad is one of them high powered New Yawk Lawyers. So his word is gold, although he's unfortunately diluted its value with too much supply and too high a percentage of fool's gold.

essjay's "PhD" got him all the way to underneath Jimbo's desk.

Gary Weiss is actually considered by his WP Friends to be an expert on short selling. LOL. He's not even an expert on how to be a journalist, even after 25 years of (not) trying.

Bauder's defrocked lawyer status led him to the toppermost of the Arbymost. That went well. About as well as his Colorado bar hearing.

Wikipedia is more akin Mao's cultural revoultion where a bunch of suddenly empowered unstable, unemployed, disgraced, religious/political fanatics get to send off all those Intellectual Elite "uncooperative" do-gooders off to the Sockfarm Reducation Camps.

Do you seriously have to ask?

One person does not make truth.

If he is correct, others will see it and agree.

If not, they wont.

Obviously, they didn't agree.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

also consider:

"But most men in any age are unimpressed by new ideas. Many actually distrust them. In time, compelling thoughts may be translated into action; then they may acquire tremendous force." -- William Manchester

and finally:

"Nothing is more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke-warmness arising partly from ... the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience in it." - Niccolo Machiavelli

And none of them made a decent encyclopedia that was based on massive amounts of users coming together and working to achieve the same end.

Nor has Wikipedia, for normal definitions of "decent" and "encyclopedia". Of course none of Shaw, Winchester, nor Machievelli had that foolish goal.

Per you.

Not per consensus.

See, thats where we get to the minority voice bitching and whining, trying to override the group, whereas the group is quite capable of working together and creating something good. Thus, that whiny minority voice probably is something worth ignoring completely, as most people tend to do with the ideas that you seem to expound throughout here gomi.

And let me guess: The "minority voice" is generally left-leaning, non-Christian, and mostly of non-European heritage?

No.

Its ChrisO.

There was a topic, remember?

I suppose there may have been one originally...

However, if you think you're going to convince anybody who's in their right mind that a self-selecting subgroup of Wikipediots working on a controversial topic is representative of the public at large, either ideologically or demographically, then you're not only on the wrong website, you're on the wrong planet. I'll admit that they might manage it on occasion, but only by pure, random chance.

"Consensus" is just another word for No One Left to Ban...

Are you done playing your games and deleting my responses?

Indeed. The notion that the opinions of a few self-selected and self-important wikipediots represents "consensus" is just as ridiculous as the notion that the opinions of a few self-selected and self-important newspaper editors represents "the voice of the people".

"Vox populi, vox humbug!"

Several sources are actually produced to be used on Wikipedia and I have several exemple of that. And Wikipedia structure support sources to be used like one would want. Like I wrote previously the citation/reference system is unencyclopedic and is not used by any major encyclopedia.

ChrisO whatever or not has a PhD does not change the fact that he too is fooled by requiring citations and claiming it ''apears to be true history''(my word) for some articles when there is some bibliography already.

Encyclopedia's cover the overal subject, they are not supposed to be thesis, references/citations might be used few time but more than that and you wonder if the subject you are covering is really encyclopedic. It would usually take several notable work to cover the overal subject, when using the bibliographical system it would dismiss any non credible publication when the overal of the subject in a questionable work would contradict sharply with all notable publications about the subject.

As I stated before, and had it deleted three times, consensus is not about representing all views or everyone in the public. Its about people working together to come to a mutual agreement. You either participate in the consensus building process, or you don't. If you don't, then you really have no right to complain that the consensus determined something that you don't like.

Its a community. All communities form community ideas and constructs. If you don't like it, build your own encyclopedia and determine how it is structured yourself. This one is built through consensus.

Ottava, with your idea of how things should be decided, evolution is not existing in the US and the world is created in 6 days, if we would let the majority rule. Unfortunately, the majority mob rule is not the same as the truth, and this is exactly why wikipedia is failing.

EuroSceptic, do you really think consensus on Wikipedia points to such a conclusion? You can throw out such things, but it does not match what Wikipedia has.






Because the moderators thought it would be funny to put this up:

"Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 3600 seconds before replying or posting a new topic"

I have placed my response here.

The fact that Somey tries to make it seem that consensus building process, which welcomes all, is some how equal to mass murder is absolutely outrageous and only proves that he hasn't a clue what he is actually talking about.

"
Why do you even defend them, Ottava? You've been blocked on Wikipedia all sorts of times. They obviously don't like you or your "ideas" any more than most of us do, which is not at all."

Yes, because my "ideas" were the reason why I was blocked. Oh wait, my editing skill was the reason why so many people kept coming to my defense when I would be blocked for REVERT WARRING, especially on certain pages like NLT when admin try to change it against consensus.

Funny how that happens.

You coudn't possibly get more illogical if you... shit, I don't think you could possibly get more illogical under any circumstances.

You literally might as well say, "If you didn't participate in the plan to commit mass murder on a global scale, then you have no right to complain when the mass murder is committed."


This one is built through agenda pushing, unaccountable revenge-grabbing, uncontrolled gamesmanship, lying, intimidation, and above all, stupidity.

Why do you even defend them, Ottava? You've been blocked on Wikipedia all sorts of times. They obviously don't like you or your "ideas" any more than most of us do, which is not at all.

I'll admit, though, you're just about the most successful and talented right-wing "troll" I've ever encountered, and that's saying something! It leads me to think that you're not really right-wing at all, but rather a left-winger who just wants to make right-wingers look bad by acting out all the aspects of the worst-nightmare wingnut stereotype. Except that you should have stopped by now - Obama won the election, remember? You can celebrate now! Go do something useful with your life!

Yes. Ottava is much like Stephen T. Colbert, except he's not funny.

Well, I laughed... So hard, in fact, that I just changed your 24-hour edit-time limit to 5 minutes! My goodness, I'm just laughing hysterically at this point.


"Welcomes all"? Um, no, but you're right about the other thing - in many ways, it's worse than mass murder. Mass murder only kills people, who would eventually die anyway. Moreover, they can rise up, defend themselves, fight back. What you apparently want to kill is the very basis of truth itself, and truth is a very fragile thing in the face of people like yourself who are determined to destroy it.

Assuming you aren't faking this whole thing, of course...


OK, I'm now 100 percent convinced that you're faking this whole thing.


Hardy har-har.

The irony here is at once palpable. laughable, and heartbreaking.

I've lost track of how many times I've promoted the notion of mutually agreeable terms of engagement as a sane and sensible alternative to mutually disagreeable terms of (dis)engagement.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the concept is not a popular one in the Wikisphere.

But more to the point, the ineluctable outcome in the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement is some form of liminal social drama.

In this case it rapidly devolves to lunatic social drama, along the lines of post-modern theater of the absurd.

Killed people rising up and fighting back? Is this like Dawn of the Dead?

More like Brazil.