| Wikipedia stirs controversy Miami Herald, FL - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the altruistic purpose ... |
Full Version: Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Centre Daily Times, PA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the altruistic purpose ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Bradenton Herald, United States - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the altruistic purpose ... |
The edit war over the article on Cuba seems to have triggered the RfC against Adam Carr, which I reported in this post. Adam Carr and 172, two of the most abusive and petulant editors I have ever encountered at Wikipedia, figure prominently all around. Does anyone know who the admin was who perma-banned Scott Grayban?
Jdforrester/James F. block log. His talk page has some discussion of it and I think it was discussed on an/i too, but it is a pain in the ass to find old threads there so I'm not going to bother. It might have just been discussion of trying to get the RFC deleted though.
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy San Jose Mercury News, USA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Pioneer Press, MN - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Kansas City Star, MO - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Centre Daily Times, PA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Bradenton Herald, United States - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy San Luis Obispo Tribune, CA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Monterey County Herald, CA - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Duluth News Tribune, MN - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Kentucky.com, KY - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Cuba entry in Wikipedia stirs controversy Myrtle Beach Sun News, SC - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the aim of becoming a ... |
| Dueling edits dog Wikipedia's Cuba entry Seattle Times, United States - ... The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered by volunteers with the aim of becoming a Web-based ... |
This is an interesting article about the "Cuba" edit war. It's interesting that the "Cuba" edit war, of all the thousands and thousands of edit wars ongoing in Wikipedia, has attracted so much press attention.
QUOTE(Donny @ Fri 5th May 2006, 12:55pm) 
It's interesting that the "Cuba" edit war, of all the thousands and thousands of edit wars ongoing in Wikipedia, has attracted so much press attention.
Many edit wars are so stupid and laughable that newspapers would only quote them if they wanted to pour scorn on Wikipedia.
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Sat 6th May 2006, 1:12am)
Paranoia, delusions of grandeur, anti-social assumptions ... the arguments we read in defense of Wikipedia are prima facia evidence of a pathological group process.
Maybe you could write a book about Wikipedia. A good starting point might be your posts here on this forum.
I think its about time that major media focussed on this kind of nonsense. It is a major criticism of Wikipedia that members of the general public can see the talk pages, which expose just how stupid the community element is. I think that Wikipedia would be infinitely better served if they reserved viewing the talk pages to people with registered accounts, and forbid them from scraping too. Cuba is a good example because the controversy surrounding it is so well known.
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 6th May 2006, 8:03am)
I think that Wikipedia would be infinitely better served if they reserved viewing the talk pages to people with registered accounts
But would innocent members of the public using Wikipedia as a reference source be better served?
QUOTE(Donny @ Fri 5th May 2006, 6:59pm)
Maybe you could write a book about Wikipedia. A good starting point might be your posts here on this forum.
You really should, there is a market.
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Sat 6th May 2006, 12:03am)
I think that Wikipedia would be infinitely better served if they reserved viewing the talk pages to people with registered accounts, and forbid them from scraping too. Cuba is a good example because the controversy surrounding it is so well known.
Then wikipedia would really be under media fire for banning un-registered users from talk pages. Especially when it comes to hate comments that Adam Carr loves to toss around like its a game. Some where Wikipedia has to take full responsibility for the actions of there abusive users like him and the Admin that allow it to keep going. Ass kissing just isn't going to work forever for Adam Carr.
QUOTE(Hush_This @ Sun 7th May 2006, 1:04pm)
A person can register a user name and make it their sole purpose to systematically remove personal attacks from talk pages. This is encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines and would go a long way toward making talk pages productive. I would start by deleting any sentence that contains the word troll. Instead, Wikipedia has made it a mission to cement this slanderous term into popular lexicons.
I did that twice and both times I was warned by some admin that I am not allowed to remove anything on the talk pages and that Adam's comment's are within his rights to make.
QUOTE(Hush_This @ Sun 7th May 2006, 1:04pm)
Carr should read up on the single party democracy the United States established in Japan after it nuked them twice, or the single-party constitutional democracy in Ivory Coast, before he imposes his view that "single-party" is a synonym for "not a democracy."
QUOTE
Dr. Eduardo Lara Hernandez, president of the Cuban Society of Constitutional and Administrative Rights: “sometimes politicians and intellectuals —due to a lack of knowledge or ill will— slander our political system and try to deny our democracy, the legitimacy of our electoral system, the characteristics of our state, the existence of human rights and even the existence of our Rule of Law. Cuba’s Rule of Law is a political system and a form of democracy different from other countries because it is planned for a different situation and different purposes.â€
Oh that would certainly open a slew of hate comment's with Adam.
QUOTE(sgrayban @ Mon 8th May 2006, 6:17am)
I did that twice and both times I was warned by some admin that I am not allowed to remove anything on the talk pages and that Adam's comment's are within his rights to make.
I think most of the posters here know this game; the game is called "applying the rules to suit yourself". George Orwell called it "doublethink". I'm not sure what Wikipedia admins call it, but they all do it. You might be interested in reading the "wiki-fiddler" article I posted in the "Websites critical of Wikipedia" thread in the general discussions forum.
We've even had one admin admitting on this forum that he applied the rules selectively. On the other hand, though, many of the Wikipedia "alphabet soup" rules, like "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks", are self-contradictory, so it's basically impossible for anyone to apply them in any sane way anyway.
QUOTE(Donny @ Sun 7th May 2006, 8:31pm)
I think most of the posters here know this game; the game is called "applying the rules to suit yourself". George Orwell called it "doublethink". I'm not sure what Wikipedia admins call it, but they all do it. You might be interested in reading the "wiki-fiddler" article I posted in the "Websites critical of Wikipedia" thread in the general discussions forum.
We've even had one admin admitting on this forum that he applied the rules selectively. On the other hand, though, many of the Wikipedia "alphabet soup" rules, like "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks", are self-contradictory, so it's basically impossible for anyone to apply them in any sane way anyway.
This is exactly why Wikipedia is unreliable as a source for anything. If the policies contradict themselves then there is no way to produce accurate articles. It's just a collection of 1 person's Pee-ohh-vee that is reverted by the next Pee-ohh-vee.
Doesn't the United States have a single party system? I mean, the Democratic and Republican Parties both come from the Democratic-Republican Party, so it seems an awful lot like a single-party system to me; maybe its a half-party system, since the Republicans control the Congress, Presidency, and the Judicial Branches. Even if the US is a two-party system, thats not much better than a single-party system; I know, 'officially' the US has lots of parties, but its absurd to suggest those parties are given any effective power -- the most popular of them, the Green Party, doesn't even get admitted to the presidential debates.
QUOTE(Lir @ Sun 7th May 2006, 9:26pm)
Doesn't the United States have a single party system? I mean, the Democratic and Republican Parties both come from the Democratic-Republican Party, so it seems an awful lot like a single-party system to me; maybe its a half-party system, since the Republicans control the Congress, Presidency, and the Judicial Branches. Even if the US is a two-party system, thats not much better than a single-party system; I know, 'officially' the US has lots of parties, but its absurd to suggest those parties are given any effective power -- the most popular of them, the Green Party, doesn't even get admitted to the presidential debates.
Well it depends on how you look at it. If the President is Republican usually the Demo's have control over Congress. So that technically makes it a 2 party system depending on what political scientist you talk to.
QUOTE(sgrayban @ Sun 7th May 2006, 11:37pm)
So that technically makes it a 2 party system depending on what political scientist you talk to.
Right, Im just pointing out that the Republicans and Democrats are really just two branches of the same party -- so its more a one-party system, than anything else. Its like, um, hardline Stalinist Soviets, and more liberal Khruschivite Soviets.
QUOTE(Lir @ Sun 7th May 2006, 11:09pm)
QUOTE(sgrayban @ Sun 7th May 2006, 11:37pm)
So that technically makes it a 2 party system depending on what political scientist you talk to.
Right, Im just pointing out that the Republicans and Democrats are really just two branches of the same party -- so its more a one-party system, than anything else. Its like, um, hardline Stalinist Soviets, and more liberal Khruschivite Soviets.
okie dokie
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.