Talk:Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
responses to lies and otherwise misleading pro-Wikimedia comments here; whoever is writing these false things should have no role in the CGO
(how to avoid repeating this mistake?) |
(responses to lies and otherwise misleading pro-Wikimedia comments here; whoever is writing these false things should have no role in the CGO) |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it. | ::They are in no way obliged to reveal this information. If you have a problem with this go create a [[fork]] of [[Wikipedia]]. Some have tried it. | ||
:::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or | :::Actually, this claim is completely and totally false. There has been no refusal of any kind to release any data of this kind. Additionally, I can find no evidence that anyone is even asking for this, or that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault. | ||
that any one has ever been critical (except here on this page) of us for this imagined fault. | |||
::::It is true they are not "obligated", but given the extreme usefulness of this information to editors of an actual encyclopedia, it must be concluded that not releasing it is motivated by a desire to keep it mostly useless as one, with a small clique in charge of what types of subjects are encouraged vs. discouraged - there being no way to use user interests as a guide to what to work on. A responsible support group would release this information. It is a lie, of course, that "no one is asking for this", it's been asked for at least a dozen times. The reason no evidence of that is easy to find is because it is specifically suppressed. Those who run [[search engine]]s know exactly how useful and valuable this data is, and it is certainly Bomis policy to retain this data for inhouse use: | |||
*Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds | *Releasing only very limited page visit information - maybe due to the performance cost it adds | ||
::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all. | ::: Again, completely false. There is no truth to this at all. | ||
:::: Whoever wrote this 'false' comments is himself a liar. There used to be numbers published on per-page visits. Now there are not, there is a list of most visited articles per month, but of course it doesn't go down to more than the top 1000, and it doesn't say where the user clicked from, or to, most often. (the issue above) | |||
*Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language". | *Treating use of [[ISO]] language codes in [[mediawiki]]'s [[interwiki link standard|interwiki link conventions]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language". | ||
| Line 59: | Line 62: | ||
:::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed. | :::This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed. | ||
::::It's easy to understand and has been clearly explained in many places at many times, it won't be done again. Whoever says it's "incoherent" is simply too stupid to understand it by example, which means they should not be involved in [[Consumerium Services]] either. | |||
*Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true. | *Banning, harassing, [[outing|attempting to "out"]] and permitting (if not deliberately attempting) [[framing]] users who point out any of the above. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extreme of [[echo chamber]] assertions being cited in Wikipedia articles as if they were true. | ||
:The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters. | :The most common criticism of Wikipedia is that the community is too open and welcoming and tolerant of people who have no willingness to work together in a healthy way with others. Such people are indeed angered when, after months of agonizing deliberations and attempts to find ways to compromise, they are eventually banned. Most wikipedians seem to feel that Jimbo has always been too lenient about such matters. | ||
::When genuine experts in a field are blocked by those with a clear conflict of interest or political bias, that is not an "encyclopedia", it's a social club. | |||
*Not supporting the default [[standard wiki URI]] that [[Wikipedia]] itself uses, in [[Mediawiki]] releases to other parties. This makes the URIs of non-Wikipedia pages more difficult to remember and impossible to recall offhand, and shifting with each mediawiki release. Since Wikipedia's don't likewise shift, this makes it almost certain that Wikipedia pages will be linked to, not those other pages. | |||
::This complaint may be out-of-date: there's some documentation about apache-modrewrite rules. | |||
:::"Some documentation" is not the same as making it the default published URI for a new site. | |||
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?) | *Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders. This sometimes reaches the bizarre extremes of assuming that the '''Wikipedia mailing list''' consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts (witness James Day and Jimbo Wales debating). (may be wikipedia-specific?) | ||
::[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-May/000038.html Anthere says] that legally important "features" are added without any consulting of the so-called "foundation", and certainly Wales seems to think himself qualified to actually judge legal questions, which is amazing, when there are contributors like Larry Solum around to ask such questions of! But he has probably been blocked by now... | |||
---- | ---- | ||