5
edits
User talk:~Bird~: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Cell 9 has been particularly effective at inciting among contributors selected for covert counseling a recognition of unqualified authority when their well-intentioned efforts were obviously under attack by Wikipendia's core group of sophomoric administrators. Their message that authoritarian behavior does not translate to authoritative information has been well received. Their operatives have developed systematic techniques for encouraging reaction with only a whisper of incitement. | Cell 9 has been particularly effective at inciting among contributors selected for covert counseling a recognition of unqualified authority when their well-intentioned efforts were obviously under attack by Wikipendia's core group of sophomoric administrators. Their message that authoritarian behavior does not translate to authoritative information has been well received. Their operatives have developed systematic techniques for encouraging reaction with only a whisper of incitement. | ||
We now have | We now have five operatives registered as administrators and two more in the nomination process. Our undercover admins have led the way in developing tactics to provoke resistance among users both new and old. | ||
We are coaching a major media outlet in how to demonstrate the unreliability of Wikipedia. Insiders tell us that other outlets might successfully complete their own reliability tests even before our preferred outlet vets its studies and publishes the results. The theme of anticipated investigative reports is that Wiki processes are not a disease, but that faith in the process does parallel common sociopathologies. We are also reaching some key scholars with the message that faith-based consensus among amateur writers is the antithesis of empirical science. | We are coaching a major media outlet in how to demonstrate the unreliability of Wikipedia. Insiders tell us that other outlets might successfully complete their own reliability tests even before our preferred outlet vets its studies and publishes the results. The theme of anticipated investigative reports is that Wiki processes are not a disease, but that faith in the process does parallel common sociopathologies. We are also reaching some key scholars with the message that faith-based consensus among amateur writers is the antithesis of empirical science. | ||