Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia (neutral)"

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(and this is Wikipedia (neutral)???????)
(if anything, the article is still far too forgiving, and not blunt enough about the conflicts of interest, frauds, lies, and stupidity at Wikimedia)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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.
 
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)]]? --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 23:12, 6 Apr 2004 (EEST)
 
: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)]]? --[[User:Juxo|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":
 +
 +
:http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April/000004.html
 +
 +
::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.
 +
 +
::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.
 +
 +
::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.
 +
 +
::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.

Revision as of 16:22, 7 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":
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-April/000004.html
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.
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.
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.
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.