Talk:Wikipedia (from 142 perspective): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:15, 27 April 2004

The entire m: Meta-Wikipedia is devoted to Talk about Wikipedia. Please don't do it here!

Only issue worth noting is who we don't want coming over here. It's now getting quite easy to identify who the ideologically motivated censors are:

This account correctly quotes the sysop-vandal w:User:Pakaran and the overt racist w:User:RickK as conspiring to attack and remove views from a contrary POV, that of Reds.

According to that account, "The comments by User:Pakaran are merely an example of a broader, overarching pattern; the abuse of users who hold unpopular beliefs is practically out in the open now and out of control." w:User:Jimbo_Wales calls this sysop vigilantiism, though he himself admits an anti-communist viewpoint probably due to being American and brainwashed by racists and fascists in primary school.

Sokolov's list of racists and fascists engaged in this behaviour include"Pakaran, RickK, Adam Carr, PMA, Very Verily, Tim Starling, and Robert Merkel". Of these w:User:Adam_Carr seems most egregious to Sokolov/172. Interesting how this list compares to those listed in the various AWR. It could not be a coincidence that on a list of ONLY SEVEN USERS, that THREE OF THEM would be also those engaged in ideological censorship earlier, against 142 and others - see 142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling for instance, where Starling basically admits his whole motivation for adding range blocks to mediawiki is ideological.

There's an interesting discussion on the Webby - People's Voice message boards about Wikipedia's nominations (under the "Community" and "Best practices" categories). It is partly referenced in a w:Wikipedia:Village pump thread (subject: Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia).

If you want to view or contribute comments on the Webby Awards website, go there, log in and look under "community" and "best practices" for comments.

From w:Wikipedia_talk:Webby Awards

"The day will come when I will put out the call for funds to distribute paper copies of Wikipedia to every child in every third world country in the world. This, too, is our mission...to achieve those goals will require us to become famous, to become a household name to every single person on the planet. Why? Because to distribute our work to everyone in the world is going to cost an enormous ton of money,...We're taking part in a revolution here, not playing around with a sideline hobby...I fully intend to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet, and I'll do what it takes to get there" - Wales.

This would be profitable for the paper and printing industry. What do you suggest then, printing and distributing Wikinfo? --Juxo 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (EEST)

I'd say Wales must be stopped, now, before he and his clique really do rule the encyclopedia world. He used to be just an incompetent hobbyist. Now he wants to be the Bill Gates of content.

also from that page

Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia

While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who wrote it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring?

This is true, it's ad hominem delete and sysop vandalism, which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :"The day will come when I will put out the call for funds to distribute paper copies of Wikipedia to every child in every third world country in the world. This, too, is our mission...to achieve those goals will require us to become famous, to become a household name to every single person on the planet. Why? Because to distribute our work to everyone in the world is going to cost an enormous ton of money,...We're taking part in a revolution here, not playing around with a sideline hobby...I fully intend to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet, and I'll do what it takes to get there" - Wales.
-:This would be extremely dangerous for the planet itself, given [[w:GDP]] and other far right wing entries, the unbalanced "community" (notice that a group of Jews recently decided the Wikipedia article "Jew" was so favourable to them that they wanted it as the number one hit on google, and arranged that via googlewash) and the deliberate censorship of even mildly green entries.
+:This would be profitable for the paper and printing industry. What do you suggest then, printing and distributing [[Wikinfo]]? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 17:15, 27 Apr 2004 (EEST)
 :I'd say Wales must be stopped, now, before he and his clique really do rule the encyclopedia world.  He used to be just an incompetent hobbyist.  Now he wants to be the Bill Gates of content.
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia
-While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who the it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring?
+While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who wrote it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring?
 :This is true, it's [[ad hominem delete]] and [[sysop vandalism]], which are absolutely counter to any "real encyclopedia" goals.