Talk:Wikipedia (neutral): Difference between revisions
(if anything, the article is still far too forgiving, and not blunt enough about the conflicts of interest, frauds, lies, and stupidity at Wikimedia) |
(anwsers and questions) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::The "full time editor", Larry Sanger, was simply a bad philosopher who might have been useful in the beginning, and to his credit never engaged in sysop games, BUT did engage in outing games, name calling games, and other stupidity. He set many bad precedents, as the post noted above says. | ::The "full time editor", Larry Sanger, was simply a bad philosopher who might have been useful in the beginning, and to his credit never engaged in sysop games, BUT did engage in outing games, name calling games, and other stupidity. He set many bad precedents, as the post noted above says. | ||
:::[[Outing]] [[trolls]] makes for more peaceful and newbie welcoming commons. Only senior people know even what is a [[troll]] and what they do. I suspect even trolls do not know why they are doing things the way they do. Most people who haven't gone the learning curve to "understand" trolls will just see them as being disruptive, even scary and aggressive users. This is the claim that [[User:DanKeshet]] has used to justify ban of [[142.177.X.X]] sadly on [[Consumerpedia]] | |||
::As for bandwidth and boxes, they obviously don't provide enough to make full text search work, or prevent frequent outages. Someone else should take over the project. Hopefully [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will be a model of good policies and wise governance - it certainly must learn from "Wikimedia" and its corruption. | ::As for bandwidth and boxes, they obviously don't provide enough to make full text search work, or prevent frequent outages. Someone else should take over the project. Hopefully [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will be a model of good policies and wise governance - it certainly must learn from "Wikimedia" and its corruption. | ||
:::Do you suspect there is some political reason for not enabling full text search, which can be done using Google btw? | |||
::Bomis clearly gains commercially from knowing who clicks through to what - they're a search engine, it is simply wrong, and stupid, to say that they don't use this information for themselves! Of course they do! They make hundreds of thousands and then whine for donations of tens of thousands to provide lousy systems. Maybe full text search is deliberately not enabled so people rely more on click-through and that makes it easier for Bomis to tell what links matter, how to configure their search engine, etc. They don't share this data. It's obviously a conflict of interest. | ::Bomis clearly gains commercially from knowing who clicks through to what - they're a search engine, it is simply wrong, and stupid, to say that they don't use this information for themselves! Of course they do! They make hundreds of thousands and then whine for donations of tens of thousands to provide lousy systems. Maybe full text search is deliberately not enabled so people rely more on click-through and that makes it easier for Bomis to tell what links matter, how to configure their search engine, etc. They don't share this data. It's obviously a conflict of interest. | ||
:::Hmm. I suspect no-one analyses the traffic logs for click-through statistics, though this is technically feasible and should yield interesting data to those who don't observe the patterns from editorial tracks, which are available by using the Recent changes facility. You ever notice that I haven't published the httpd logs of Consumerium and GFDL does not require me to do so? | |||
::So, yes, it's neutral to say that the problems are as small as they are and maybe solvable. To be critical, one would have to be more honest about all the above, and the fact that the stupidity is not getting better, but much worse. | ::So, yes, it's neutral to say that the problems are as small as they are and maybe solvable. To be critical, one would have to be more honest about all the above, and the fact that the stupidity is not getting better, but much worse. | ||
:::Do you in general see a tendency for stupidity to cease nowerdays? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (EEST) | |||
Revision as of 15:24, 8 April 2004
The open links in this article can just stay here. Don't worry about them. This article isn't really linked from anywhere.
Recyclopedia.info is down due to bandwidth limits (New Zealand has fierce ones) so we might as well attract those interested in accurate information about English Wikipedia bias and Wikimedia corruption, and get them working here at Consumerium.
- Whooa. i read through almost trough it and it doesn't give the wikipedia core (proprietators, developers, sysops, and active editors) any respect for taking the project as far as it's come and attacks Bomis, which provided for an full-time editor that helped get the project into the air and still provides massive bandwidth for the servers and you call this Wikipedia (neutral)? --Juxo 23:12, 6 Apr 2004 (EEST)
- Yup. These people are frauds. They promised every single contributor that they were contributing to a GFDL project, and they break the terms of the GFDL and try to monopolize the GFDL corpus. They appoint very bad people as sysops. Then once they've driven off their political opponents, they can use their popularity (since only their friends are left) to become "stewards":
- The "full time editor", Larry Sanger, was simply a bad philosopher who might have been useful in the beginning, and to his credit never engaged in sysop games, BUT did engage in outing games, name calling games, and other stupidity. He set many bad precedents, as the post noted above says.
- Outing trolls makes for more peaceful and newbie welcoming commons. Only senior people know even what is a troll and what they do. I suspect even trolls do not know why they are doing things the way they do. Most people who haven't gone the learning curve to "understand" trolls will just see them as being disruptive, even scary and aggressive users. This is the claim that User:DanKeshet has used to justify ban of 142.177.X.X sadly on Consumerpedia
- As for bandwidth and boxes, they obviously don't provide enough to make full text search work, or prevent frequent outages. Someone else should take over the project. Hopefully Consumerium Governance Organization will be a model of good policies and wise governance - it certainly must learn from "Wikimedia" and its corruption.
- Do you suspect there is some political reason for not enabling full text search, which can be done using Google btw?
- Bomis clearly gains commercially from knowing who clicks through to what - they're a search engine, it is simply wrong, and stupid, to say that they don't use this information for themselves! Of course they do! They make hundreds of thousands and then whine for donations of tens of thousands to provide lousy systems. Maybe full text search is deliberately not enabled so people rely more on click-through and that makes it easier for Bomis to tell what links matter, how to configure their search engine, etc. They don't share this data. It's obviously a conflict of interest.
- Hmm. I suspect no-one analyses the traffic logs for click-through statistics, though this is technically feasible and should yield interesting data to those who don't observe the patterns from editorial tracks, which are available by using the Recent changes facility. You ever notice that I haven't published the httpd logs of Consumerium and GFDL does not require me to do so?
- So, yes, it's neutral to say that the problems are as small as they are and maybe solvable. To be critical, one would have to be more honest about all the above, and the fact that the stupidity is not getting better, but much worse.
- Do you in general see a tendency for stupidity to cease nowerdays? --Juxo 18:24, 8 Apr 2004 (EEST)