Full Version: Is Wikipedia cracking up? - Independent
•Is Wikipedia cracking up?
Independent, UK -39 minutes ago
It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom ...
View the article
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 12:42am) 
•Is Wikipedia cracking up?
Independent, UK -39 minutes ago
It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom ...
View the article
Better link.
Sheer Drivel …
Ja, Ja, Ja
Ja, Ja, Ja
<img src=http://nt1.ggpht.com/news?imgefp=-XWGulHRcOEJ&imgurl=www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/00271/wikipedia__271024t.jpg width=80 height=58 alt="" border=1>
•Is Wikipedia cracking up?
Irish Independent, Ireland -42 minutes ago
It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom ...
View the article
•Is Wikipedia cracking up?
Irish Independent, Ireland -42 minutes ago
It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, riven by boardroom ...
View the article
One of the best articles about Wikipedia I've read. Accurate, comprehensive, covering a whole span of issues, and it's pretty neutral.
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 1:56pm)
One of the best articles about Wikipedia I've read. Accurate, comprehensive, covering a whole span of issues, and it's pretty neutral.
So you think Jimbo looks "bookish" do you? An obvious typo that.
Looks like the same article already discussed elsewhere, only the "Irish Independent" venue doesn't seem to allow comments, so far as I can see.
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 7:10pm)
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 1:56pm)
One of the best articles about Wikipedia I've read. Accurate, comprehensive, covering a whole span of issues, and it's pretty neutral.
So you think Jimbo looks "bookish" do you? An obvious typo that.
Looks like the same article already discussed elsewhere, only the "Irish Independent" venue doesn't seem to allow comments, so far as I can see.
Ja³
FWIW, the Irish Independent is owned by the same company as The Independent (which I think is the Mirror Group).*
*Treat this as accurate as any other posting on Wikipedia.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 7:14pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 7:10pm)
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 1:56pm)
One of the best articles about Wikipedia I've read. Accurate, comprehensive, covering a whole span of issues, and it's pretty neutral.
So you think Jimbo looks "bookish" do you? An obvious typo that.
Looks like the same article already discussed elsewhere, only the "Irish Independent" venue doesn't seem to allow comments, so far as I can see.
Ja³
FWIW, the Irish Independent is owned by the same company as The Independent (which I think is the Mirror Group).*
*Treat this as accurate as any other posting on Wikipedia.
Not Mirror Group; both UK and ROI Independents are owned by Tony O'Reilly (although probably not for much longer as the Russians are in negotiations for both). Mirror Group is owned by Trinity.
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 2:31pm)
Not Mirror Group; both UK and ROI Independents are owned by Tony O'Reilly (although probably not for much longer as the Russians are in negotiations for both). Mirror Group is owned by Trinity.
Make up your own joke about "horse breeder".
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 2:10pm)
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 3rd February 2009, 1:56pm)
One of the best articles about Wikipedia I've read. Accurate, comprehensive, covering a whole span of issues, and it's pretty neutral.
So you think Jimbo looks "bookish" do you? An obvious typo that.
Looks like the same article already discussed elsewhere, only the "Irish Independent" venue doesn't seem to allow comments, so far as I can see.
Ja³
Ah, no. I don't think he looks bookish. That must be the blatant inaccuracy that Jay Walsh noted in his comment on the UK page. Speaking of that, I didn't realize there was a UK page with the same story. I just saw the Newsfeed link and read. I was saddened by the missing option to comment, so was glad to see that the UK version allowed it... though they've currently disappeared. Hopefully due to the maintenance LJ is doing right now.
One for the «How Does It Feeel?» File —
Jay Walsh's Wiki-Whining is Absolutely Priceless —
Weak Reporting
jayawalsh wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
While it's clear that Mr. Foley has consulted a number of individuals in preparation for the above story, it's unfortunate he did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment. A number of the facts in the story are blatantly false, and further details are sloppily reported or incorrect. In several cases he is simply echoing poor reporting from other sources.
It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes.
It does not come as a surprise that a tremendously popular and complex knowledge project is subject to fair criticism, but it is a disservice to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, and a further insult to the work of tens of thousands of volunteer editors from around the world to blindly report on matters without inquiring at the source.
The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries. We would have, and continue to welcome, the chance to shed light on the extraordinary aspects of our projects that Foley has so casually overlooked.
Sincerely,
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
Looks like the perfect material for a Form Letter that we can Fire Bak@Em on every occasion.
Ja³
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Mon 2nd February 2009, 7:42pm)
Jay Walsh's Wiki-Whining is Absolutely Priceless —
QUOTE
Weak Reporting
jayawalsh wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
While it's clear that Mr. Foley has consulted a number of individuals in preparation for the above story, it's unfortunate he did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment. A number of the facts in the story are blatantly false, and further details are sloppily reported or incorrect. In several cases he is simply echoing poor reporting from other sources.
It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes.
It does not come as a surprise that a tremendously popular and complex knowledge project is subject to fair criticism, but it is a disservice to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, and a further insult to the work of tens of thousands of volunteer editors from around the world to blindly report on matters without inquiring at the source.
The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries. We would have, and continue to welcome, the chance to shed light on the extraordinary aspects of our projects that Foley has so casually overlooked.
Sincerely,
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
Looks like the perfect material for a Form Letter that we can Fire Bak@Em on every occasion.
Ja³
My Comment on Jay Walsh's Complaint —
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
"it's unfortunate [Mr. Foley] did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment."
Wow, Jay, what a novel idea! — contacting the subjects of articles before rushing into print! — it's a wonder that no one has ever thought of that before! Who knows? Maybe someday all journalists will try making a simple phone call to the subject of an obituary, oh, I don't know, perhaps by way of de-x-aggerating the rumors of his or her demise.
Naaah …
"It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes."
Now where's that ironicon when I really need it?
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
"it's unfortunate [Mr. Foley] did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment."
Wow, Jay, what a novel idea! — contacting the subjects of articles before rushing into print! — it's a wonder that no one has ever thought of that before! Who knows? Maybe someday all journalists will try making a simple phone call to the subject of an obituary, oh, I don't know, perhaps by way of de-x-aggerating the rumors of his or her demise.
Naaah …
"It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes."
Now where's that ironicon when I really need it?
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
Jay Walsh's letter has obviously been printed with imcomplete text. I have put the full restored version below.
Weak Reporting
jayawalsh wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
While it's clear that Mr. Foley has consulted a number of individuals in preparation for the above story, it's unfortunate he did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment. A number of the facts in the story are blatantly false, and further details are sloppily reported or incorrect. In several cases he is simply echoing poor reporting from other sources. In this aspect, his article resembles most Wikipedia Wikis, which we feel is really unfortunate.
It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes. Of course, it's a sad reflection on Wikipedia when we do this also, but that's just us. The world expects it of us, but not of a newspaper, for heavensake!
It does not come as a surprise that a tremendously popular and complex knowledge project is subject to fair criticism, but it is a disservice to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, and a further insult to the work of tens of thousands of volunteer editors from around the world to blindly report on matters without inquiring at the source. Here at Wikipedia we can't inquire at the source when we write our own articles, because that would be original research. But we're shocked that The Independent didn't do it, because it's not against their rules. So their article should have been better than ours normally are.
We are especially chagrinned that now that this article has appeared in the Independent, someone will wish to use material from it as a printed "reliable source" for material about Wikipedia. You see, because we're insiders here, we know it's not reliable. So you should not be surprised if we delete all such attempts to insert such references, using our administrative authority. We do realize that other institutions have similar problems with Wikis written about them by bad newspapers, but that's not our problem, is it? We have to protect our own corporate image on Wikipedia, and the important thing is that we have the power to do so. On Wikipedia.
The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation, which is why we're writing this letter to explain why we're so mad. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries. We would have, and continue to welcome, the chance to shed light on the extraordinary aspects of our projects that Foley has so casually overlooked. At any time, if you call us, we'll also be glad to tickle your irony sense by complaining about the notable inacuracy of certain newspapers as primary sources of information, when it comes to us at Wikipedia. But at the same time, will defend to the death our editors' right to use newpapers as sources when it comes to saying unpleasent things about other corporations. Again, their problem, not ours. At least we can fix our own Wiki about us. So there.
Sincerely,
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
Weak Reporting
jayawalsh wrote:
Tuesday, 3 February 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
While it's clear that Mr. Foley has consulted a number of individuals in preparation for the above story, it's unfortunate he did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment. A number of the facts in the story are blatantly false, and further details are sloppily reported or incorrect. In several cases he is simply echoing poor reporting from other sources. In this aspect, his article resembles most Wikipedia Wikis, which we feel is really unfortunate.
It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes. Of course, it's a sad reflection on Wikipedia when we do this also, but that's just us. The world expects it of us, but not of a newspaper, for heavensake!
It does not come as a surprise that a tremendously popular and complex knowledge project is subject to fair criticism, but it is a disservice to the millions of people who access Wikipedia every day, and a further insult to the work of tens of thousands of volunteer editors from around the world to blindly report on matters without inquiring at the source. Here at Wikipedia we can't inquire at the source when we write our own articles, because that would be original research. But we're shocked that The Independent didn't do it, because it's not against their rules. So their article should have been better than ours normally are.
We are especially chagrinned that now that this article has appeared in the Independent, someone will wish to use material from it as a printed "reliable source" for material about Wikipedia. You see, because we're insiders here, we know it's not reliable. So you should not be surprised if we delete all such attempts to insert such references, using our administrative authority. We do realize that other institutions have similar problems with Wikis written about them by bad newspapers, but that's not our problem, is it? We have to protect our own corporate image on Wikipedia, and the important thing is that we have the power to do so. On Wikipedia.
The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation, which is why we're writing this letter to explain why we're so mad. We answer the phone and we respond to inquiries. We would have, and continue to welcome, the chance to shed light on the extraordinary aspects of our projects that Foley has so casually overlooked. At any time, if you call us, we'll also be glad to tickle your irony sense by complaining about the notable inacuracy of certain newspapers as primary sources of information, when it comes to us at Wikipedia. But at the same time, will defend to the death our editors' right to use newpapers as sources when it comes to saying unpleasent things about other corporations. Again, their problem, not ours. At least we can fix our own Wiki about us. So there.
Sincerely,
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
QUOTE(Jay Walsh)
It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes.
Well it is Wikipedia the Independent is featuring, what does Jay expect?
Wikipedia Ironic Quote : Number 65439
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 4th February 2009, 3:48pm)
My Comment on Jay Walsh's Complaint —
QUOTE
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
"it's unfortunate [Mr. Foley] did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment."
Wow, Jay, what a novel idea! — contacting the subjects of articles before rushing into print! — it's a wonder that no one has ever thought of that before! Who knows? Maybe someday all journalists will try making a simple phone call to the subject of an obituary, oh, I don't know, perhaps by way of de-x-aggerating the rumors of his or her demise.
Naaah …
"It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes."
Now where's that ironicon when I really need it?
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
This is a brilliant response, Jon. I hope no one dilutes your point with silly talk about "original research."
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 4th February 2009, 3:57pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 4th February 2009, 3:48pm)
My Comment on Jay Walsh's Complaint —
QUOTE
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Wednesday, 4 February 2009 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
"it's unfortunate [Mr. Foley] did not take the time to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly for any information or comment."
Wow, Jay, what a novel idea! — contacting the subjects of articles before rushing into print! — it's a wonder that no one has ever thought of that before! Who knows? Maybe someday all journalists will try making a simple phone call to the subject of an obituary, oh, I don't know, perhaps by way of de-x-aggerating the rumors of his or her demise.
Naaah …
"It is a sad reflection on The Independent when it devotes an entire feature to rumor mongering, selective research, and sniping quotes."
Now where's that ironicon when I really need it?
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
This is a brilliant response, Jon. I hope no one dilutes your point with silly talk about "original research."
The classically ironic thing, of course, is that the WMF Head of Communications knows exactly what a publication should be doing if it wants to be regarded as accurate, balanced, complete, diligent, ethical, fair, reliable, reputable, responsible, and all that other good stuff that Da Hive Mind snickers up its 9 million sleeves and socks at as if it were the obsolete obsessions of old-fangled 3×5-card-carrying journalists and pedants.
Jon
WP:CRACK↑
The Independent.UK article is becoming the site of a major battle between Greg Kohs and some Anonymous Cowfart writing under the pseudonym "Wikipediauser" — yes, I thought it was Wikidefender at first, but this Psude's not as witty by ½ — anyway, check it out.
Your Fiendly Naborhood E-Bedded Reporter,
Ja³
The Independent.UK article is becoming the site of a major battle between Greg Kohs and some Anonymous Cowfart writing under the pseudonym "Wikipediauser" — yes, I thought it was Wikidefender at first, but this Psude's not as witty by ½ — anyway, check it out.
Your Fiendly Naborhood E-Bedded Reporter,
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 10:36am)
WP:CRACK↑
The Independent.UK article is becoming the site of a major battle between Greg Kohs and some Anonymous Cowfart writing under the pseudonym "Wikipediauser" — yes, I thought it was Wikidefender at first, but this Psude's not as witty by ½ — anyway, check it out.
Your Fiendly Naborhood E-Bedded Reporter,
Ja³
And now Danny Wool has joined the fray
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 9:36am)
WP:CRACK↑
The Independent.UK article is becoming the site of a major battle between Greg Kohs and some Anonymous Cowfart writing under the pseudonym "Wikipediauser" — yes, I thought it was Wikidefender at first, but this Psude's not as witty by ½ — anyway, check it out.
Your Fiendly Naborhood E-Bedded Reporter,
Ja³
Yes, indeedy. Greg seems to be in excellent form, and our own laralove (I believe it's her) gets in a couple of good blows as well.
Any bets as to who "wikipediauser" is?
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 9:36am)
WP:CRACK↑
The Independent.UK article is becoming the site of a major battle between Greg Kohs and some Anonymous Cowfart writing under the pseudonym "Wikipediauser" — yes, I thought it was Wikidefender at first, but this Psude's not as witty by ½ — anyway, check it out.
Your Fiendly Naborhood E-Bedded Reporter,
Ja³
Yes, indeedy. Greg seems to be in excellent form, and our own laralove (I believe it's her) gets in a couple of good blows as well.
Any bets as to who "wikipediauser" is?
Greg abdeuced it was Sue Gardner herownself — can you spell F-E-R-O-C-I-O-U-S ??? — at any rate it's someone with the Wiki-Party Line and all the Talking Wiki-Points tattooed on her hands.
Ja³
And a knowledgeable person rolls up knowing what the solution is; BLPs should manage their own pages of course. 
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 1:22pm)
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
Yes, indeedy. Greg seems to be in excellent form, and our own laralove (I believe it's her) gets in a couple of good blows as well.
Any bets as to who "wikipediauser" is?
Greg abdeuced it was Sue Gardner herownself — can you spell F-E-R-O-C-I-O-U-S ??? — at any rate it's someone with the Wiki-Party Line and all the Talking Wiki-Points tattooed on her hands.
Ja³
Ah yes. If memory serves, it was Greg that first came up with that "Spiderhands" moniker. I suppose she has never forgiven him for that one.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:50pm)
And a knowledgeable person rolls up knowing what the solution is; BLPs should manage their own pages of course.
It might reduce the number of premature ebituaries …
Then again, maybe not …
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 8:33pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:50pm)
And a knowledgeable person rolls up knowing what the solution is; BLPs should manage their own pages of course.
It might reduce the number of premature ebituaries …
Then again, maybe not …
Ja³
Apparently not, indeed.
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:22am)
"adduced"(sorry)
This argument is actually the most entertaining thing I've ever seen
on the Independent's website. And there are very few actual
UK citizens involved. Haw haw.
If that's really Sue, then she's proving to be a world-class BSer.
A future American politician in utero?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th February 2009, 11:39am)
If that's really Sue, then she's proving to be a world-class BSer.
A future American politician in utero?
If that really is Sue (I some how doubt she'd be so dumb as to get into a slanging match like that, it feels more like our UK PR guru David Gerard with the Wiki markup, though I do not have many years of honed linguistic skills to back that up) then I think she might be unwise to go down a route of making arguable statements anonymously which she feels she cannot make from her official position. It would also show what a brilliant job Greg has done of getting under their skin - they have no real response to Greg's comments.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th February 2009, 6:39am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:22am)
"adduced"
(sorry)
This argument is actually the most entertaining thing I've ever seen on the Independent's website. And there are very few actual UK citizens involved. Haw haw.
If that's really Sue, then she's proving to be a world-class BSer. A future American politician in utero?
Actually, that's abduced
+ a devilish bit of code mutation.Ja³
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
Yes, indeedy. Greg seems to be in excellent form, and our own laralove (I believe it's her) gets in a couple of good blows as well.
It is I.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
Any bets as to who "wikipediauser" is?
"... a bastardized version of Wikipedia's open source software." <-- Sounds like something Gerard would say.
[Edit] "Your comments are incoherent, rambling and largely idiotic, most people won't bother to take you seriously. For the few that do, there'll hopefully always be enough people in the high profile forums taking the time to refute your rubbish."
This is looking more and more like Gerard. Isn't "rubbish" mostly used in British English?
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th February 2009, 6:39am)
A future American politician in utero?
Canadian.
She could be Guv of Kalifornica — I mean, who couldn't — but thanks goodness the Preziduncy is out.
Ja³
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 6th February 2009, 9:44am)
This is looking more and more like Gerard. Isn't "rubbish" mostly used in British English?
Many Canadians also sprach Da Queen's English.
(EZ Set-Up)
Ja³
It occurred to me that it might be helpful to articulate the ironies implicit in Jay Walsh's complaint a little more.
So I did.
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:42 pm (UTC)
The irony, of course, is that the WMF Head of Communications knows exactly what a publication should be doing if it wants to be regarded as accurate, balanced, complete, diligent, ethical, fair, reliable, responsible, and all that other good stuff. And he expects his interests to be treated that way in the press. Of course he does, we all do. We have a right to expect it because that is the way a civil society, a responsibly free press, and a scholarship dedicated to truth have to operate if they seek to deliver the goods. But the WMF Head of Communications will then do a little song and dance — he will try to tell you that Wikipedia is not really a publication, that the WMF is not really a publisher, that his army of pseuds and psocks is exempt from all the things that normal society expects of a responsible publication.
Let us pray that we have more sense than to buy that.
Jon Awbrey
So I did.
QUOTE
Re: Wik Reporting
jonawbrey wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 01:42 pm (UTC)
The irony, of course, is that the WMF Head of Communications knows exactly what a publication should be doing if it wants to be regarded as accurate, balanced, complete, diligent, ethical, fair, reliable, responsible, and all that other good stuff. And he expects his interests to be treated that way in the press. Of course he does, we all do. We have a right to expect it because that is the way a civil society, a responsibly free press, and a scholarship dedicated to truth have to operate if they seek to deliver the goods. But the WMF Head of Communications will then do a little song and dance — he will try to tell you that Wikipedia is not really a publication, that the WMF is not really a publisher, that his army of pseuds and psocks is exempt from all the things that normal society expects of a responsible publication.
Let us pray that we have more sense than to buy that.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 6th February 2009, 2:44pm)
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
Yes, indeedy. Greg seems to be in excellent form, and our own laralove (I believe it's her) gets in a couple of good blows as well.
It is I.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:05pm)
Any bets as to who "wikipediauser" is?
"... a bastardized version of Wikipedia's open source software." <-- Sounds like something Gerard would say.
[Edit] "Your comments are incoherent, rambling and largely idiotic, most people won't bother to take you seriously. For the few that do, there'll hopefully always be enough people in the high profile forums taking the time to refute your rubbish."
This is looking more and more like Gerard. Isn't "rubbish" mostly used in British English?
I think so too, aside from Gerard is usually not shy in identifying himself, but the whole tone is rather him, it has that condescending tone that he does.
Jon is right, of course.
However, it's important not to label his comment as a call for "accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media," as that phrase is â„¢ Moulton, and I will sue your fuckin' ass, you shithead, if you so much as fantasize* about calling it that.
Thank you for your time and attention.
* And I know what you're thinking.
However, it's important not to label his comment as a call for "accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media," as that phrase is â„¢ Moulton, and I will sue your fuckin' ass, you shithead, if you so much as fantasize* about calling it that.
Thank you for your time and attention.
* And I know what you're thinking.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:39am)
I think so too, aside from Gerard is usually not shy in identifying himself, but the whole tone is rather him, it has that condescending tone that he does.
Could be Just Zis Guy Chapman. I've always had trouble telling them apart.
Ja³
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:44am)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:39am)
I think so too, aside from Gerard is usually not shy in identifying himself, but the whole tone is rather him, it has that condescending tone that he does.
Could be Just Zis Guy Chapman. I've always had trouble telling them apart.
Ja³
Based on Guy's contribs, I'd say these posts were made during his sleep hours. Seems to be outside of Gerard's regular editing times as well.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:43am)
Jon is right, of course.
However, it's important not to label his comment as a call for "accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media," as that phrase is â„¢ Moulton, and I will sue your fuckin' ass, you shithead, if you so much as fantasize* about calling it that.
Thank you for your time and attention.
* And I know what you're thinking.
Yes, fantasize matters, but yer maroonic χobscuro will only get yer ∗∗∗ assterism ∗∗∗ voted off the island, Mr Croon-So.
Ja³
Dynamic Data Page —
Wiki-Shibboleths : Toward More Wiki-Picaresque Speech
• David Gerard : «Vociferous Critic»
• Guy Chapman : «Vociferous Critic»
More To Come …
But I really gotta get some work done today …
Ja³
• Your search — "Sue Gardner" "vociferous critic" — did not match any documents.
Hold yer calls, folks, we have a winner!
Trial By Giggle Test — which we all know is Surficient Raisin for the Wikipediot Mind — awards the authorship «Wikipediabuser» to David Gerard.
Ja³
Wiki-Shibboleths : Toward More Wiki-Picaresque Speech
• David Gerard : «Vociferous Critic»
• Guy Chapman : «Vociferous Critic»
More To Come …
But I really gotta get some work done today …
Ja³
• Your search — "Sue Gardner" "vociferous critic" — did not match any documents.
Hold yer calls, folks, we have a winner!
Trial By Giggle Test — which we all know is Surficient Raisin for the Wikipediot Mind — awards the authorship «Wikipediabuser» to David Gerard.
Ja³
I posted another comment in response to Jay Walsh's claims about openness and transparency —
Re: Jay Walsh, "The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation."
Readers who want to see just how "transparent" Wikipedia procedures really are might want to follow the developments at this blog — http://arbitrary-notions.blogspot.com/ — where a former Wikipedia insider is casting some sunlight on the smoke-filled back parlours where a lot Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes stagecraft is fashioned.
Jon Awbrey, 09 Feb 2009, 10:50 pm (UTC)
Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but I was being called to dinner and somewhat rushed the last bit.
Jon
Tagged for Web Searches under • Wikipedia Transparency •
QUOTE
Re: Jay Walsh, "The Wikimedia Foundation prides itself on an open and transparent operation."
Readers who want to see just how "transparent" Wikipedia procedures really are might want to follow the developments at this blog — http://arbitrary-notions.blogspot.com/ — where a former Wikipedia insider is casting some sunlight on the smoke-filled back parlours where a lot Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes stagecraft is fashioned.
Jon Awbrey, 09 Feb 2009, 10:50 pm (UTC)
Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but I was being called to dinner and somewhat rushed the last bit.
Jon
Tagged for Web Searches under • Wikipedia Transparency •
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.