[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&sa=T&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F170874%2Fthe_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html&usg=AFQjCNGBCGiV1vANllm3-U41YEyDMZeCZQ"][img]http://nt2.ggpht.com/news/tbn/Qmh1_eojepmnrM/6.jpg[/img]
PC World[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 Biggest [b]Wikipedia Blunders[/b]
PC World
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of still-living people ...

and more »

View the article

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 Biggest [b]Wikipedia Blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]NetworkWorld.com
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, ...

and more »

View the article

Save it. These are a list of basic vandalisms (alas) not meta-blunders (stupid WP politicies). But out of the 15 I hadn't heard of about half. And (surprise!) they are all BLP vandalisms. Of course, the blog errs in thinking that anything WP is doing right now will do anything about this. But that's par for the course. The only thoughtful blogs about Wikipedia are Finkelstein's, and nobody reads them.

For the record, here are the 15 BLP vandalisms listed:

1. Robbie Williams eats domestic pets in pubs for money.

2. David Beckham was a Chinese goalkeeper in the 18th century.

3. Paul Reiser's dead.

4. Sinbad's dead.

5. Sergey Brin's sexy, dating Jimmy Wales, and dead.

6. Tony Blair worships Hitler.

7. The Duchess of Cornwall's Christian name is Cow-miller.

8. The University of Cincinnati's former president is a whore.

9. Robert Byrd's dead.

10. Ted Kennedy died in January.

11. John Seigenthaler helped assassinate John and Robert Kennedy.

12. A yacht killed British TV presenter Vernon Kay.

13. Conan O'Brien assaults sea turtles while canoeing.

Article says: "Stephen Colbert was to blame for this hoax. I can't decide which is more unbelievable: that Conan assaulted a sea turtle, or that he went canoeing."

14. British TV gardener Alan Titchmarsh published a new version of the Kama Sutra.

15. Sienna Miller has modeled nude.

Article says: "I don't care if it's not true -- I'm still going to require proof on this one."

Milton says: Ah, on this one we come to agreement.

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 Biggest [b]Wikipedia Blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]The Industry Standard
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of still-living people ...

and more »

View the article

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 biggest [b]Wikipedia blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]PC World Magazine
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of still-living people ...

and more »

View the article

That's really not a bad list, but if it's supposed to be in some sort of rank order it's just plain wrong.

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 biggest [b]Wikipedia blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]Computerworld Australia
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of still-living people ...

and more »

View the article

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 Biggest [b]Wikipedia Blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]InfoWorld
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages ...

and more »

View the article

[/size]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />The 15 Biggest [b]Wikipedia Blunders[/b]
[size="-1"]ITworld.com
Wikipedia's just announced plans to restrict the editing of some of its articles. Under the new system, any changes made to pages of ...

and more »

View the article

These are all rather trivial, compared to many serious errors that WP also contains that are deliberate, harmful and impossible to correct.

Like giving adminship to Xeno?

That is one, although I was thinking of content. Among the poorest of admins, Xeno stands out.

As much as I love being on the receiving end of abuse without merit ( <3 AHWNN ), can you point to some admin actions I've taken that have been problematic?

Surely this isn't because I wasn't very supportive of you during your bid to get unblocked in July 2008 for a block that was asserted to be for making "legal threats"?

Slightly amended for clarity. Original can be seen in quoted.

You know, fuzzy head, you are among the very, very few people who can gallop through Wikipedia (let alone WR) and not get sucked into its maelstrom or get warped by its drama and noise. I shouldn't be trash talking about you -- you're not a bad guy.

I had forgotten that, thanks for reminding us of this example.

No, it is because your consistent assumption of bad faith, your inability to understand policy or even the most basic policy concepts, your lies and attempts to damage good people, all of which you demonstrate again (but superfluously) by this comment, and many more undesirable qualities.


But, as I said, you nonetheless stand out among your peers.

We should not treat you so harshly.

Aww, horsey, you old softie. Don't change on my account. I'd miss your horse-hoofs of love.



Could you give me some examples? Your sweeping comments aren't helpful in the least.

Why would I do that?

First, you already gave a nice example yourself, and second, you didn't bother to provide a single diff to back up what you said about me.

But let's not make this thread about you. I can substitute any of a thousand names for yours and still say the same.

Well, I suppose the main reason would be because if you would validate your complaints, I would make efforts to improve.

But - if you're not interested in that - by all means, continue with your unfounded accusations.

I am particularly confused that you think I consistently ABF, when in fact I have been at times accused of the converse; AGF'ing to the point of suicide pact.

Your other complaints (imo) are just plain absurd, which is why I've asked for examples (preferably those that aren't related to you and your peculiar interpretation of our NLT policy).

If you want to make an effort to improve, then stop accusing me of making legal threats. Until that happens, I care nothing about your complaints.

I don't see that I accused you above of making legal threats. I think I said you have a peculiar interpretation of our NLT policy.

I have slightly amended my first reply to you above as my intention was not to accuse you of making legal threats, but you were indeed blocked for that reason (this is a factual statement without judgment as to the merit or lack thereof).

Sigh.

One of the major flaws of Wikipedia is that administrators get to interpret policy.

As you may know policy is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And I understand why those who both make legal threats or take legal action against Wikipedia or against Wikipedian editors related to matters on Wikipedia are blocked from editing, and this makes sense to me.

Perhaps the targets should be blocked as well? See Wikipedia_talk:NLT#Thoughts_of_a_lawyer_about_legal_actions_vs_threats

Anyhow, I'm still waiting for some examples of your complaints, but I won't hold my breath.

This thread probably needs split.

That is your interpretation!

But honestly, laboring over individual words in a policy is a strange thing to do. They're constantly in flux. It's even stranger that one would place monumental significance on the word "may" in one sentence while ignoring other words wholesale because they "need not apply."

My view--and one of the reasons that I pushed for Guido to be unblocked--is that he made a good faith interpretation of the policy. It happened to clash with our actual practice, but he should not be penalized for misunderstanding our admittedly amorphous policies.

Let's not forget that "may" is entirely appropriate here. "Will" would be inaccurate, because surely there have been legal threats that went unnoticed... Those people were not blocked, but they may have been, if someone noticed...

(Administrator sees legal threat. Thinks to themself... "May I block this user for this threat?" [looks at policy] "Yes, I may!" [[Special:Block...)

This article itself is based on a blunder, because none of the 15 items in the list are actual blunders--they are deliberate misinformation, vandalism and hoaxes. Has a con-artist blundered when he tricks someone into believing a lie?

huh? On topic? You must be new here!




You are, of course, right. Most of these don't even strike me as something that should qualifier for the "Biggest" (whatever) because they're mostly childish vandalism that no one would believe anyway.

The "blundering", I guess, is in us not noticing it in a timely fashion. Which I suppose is applicable in at least the Siegenthaler (likely sp) incident.

I know it does. It illustrates why you should not be allowed to decide about such matters.

It is telling that you see them as targets, instead of (possible) instigators. But no, they should not be blocked either, that is: not for being a 'target' (they may need a block on other grounds).

You have provided examples in abundance in this thread, methinks. And despite the textual changes you made, you are still implying that I made legal threats, which is false.



Indeed. Quite a few WP administrators make this claim, because it would place them above policy. But it's wrong. Policy is prescriptive.

Mind you, it's still policy, not law. Deviations from policy can be warranted on occasion.

Target is not a value statement. Someone can be a target of legal action whether or not they are ultimately at fault (the "instigator"). You seem to ascribe additional meaning to words where there is none. Perhaps this is a result of English not being your native language?

I am not implying you made legal threats, I am asserting the simple and verifiable fact that you were indeed blocked for a reason asserted to be "legal threats". I also admit that I was less-than-supportive of you in your attempts to have this block lifted, primarily because your request was based purely on a peculiar semantic interpretation as discussed above.

As I understand it, and as you said yourself, you announced legal action against another editor on en.wiki, and I agree you should have been blocked until such action had been resolved in due course.

As you have not provided any examples outside this instance, I'll simply have to assume that you have a problem with me because we disagree on matters of policy related to legal threats and action.

I'm fine with this, and if you want to make sweeping generalizations about my administrative conduct because of a narrow disagreement on one policy, that is certainly your prerogative. Enjoy.

Thanks for proving that you consistently assume bad faith.

You have also shown without doubt that you will apply any policy the way you think it should be, and will ignore what it actually is. After all, if you deviate, it's the policy that should be corrected, right? It should describe what you do!

You are a Wikipedia Administrator, it's impossible for you to err...

Awww, c'mon guys...you ought to follow the Horsey philosophy: make love, not war.

I love it when you talk dickish to us. Please go on.

Well, you started it.

Then Xeno/Apathetic made sure it continued... made me read through Mythdon's suffering that nicely illustrates a general lack of good faith, including by Xeno.

A clear case of making sure that the messenger gets shot.

Well, let me finish it. C'mon, Guido, and get yourself a big Horsey kiss. Mwah! Mwah!

That's only fair.

Now, as for real blunders.

A really peculiar one is that, according to Wikipedia, Monaco is its own capital.

While in itself this is already weird and illogical, clearly in official documents no capital has been declared.

It is, however, impossible to correct the WP entry. There is a template that asks for a capital to be named, and so people do - sometimes putting 'Monaco', sometimes 'Monaco-ville', but always ignoring reality.

You'd better tell the State Department that, because they seem to think the capital of Monaco is "Monaco".
As does the CIA.
And BBC Country Profiles.

If the concept of "country and city having the same name" is really that confusing, try thinking of New York.

It's not a case of country and city having the same name. There is just one Monaco, the principality.

Indeed, it's like asking what is the capital of the Vatican.