Talk:Wikipedia (neutral)

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.
Outing trolls makes for more peaceful and newbie welcoming commons.
That's probably the stupidest thing any sysop has ever written anywhere. Some new people are offended by some established people's attitudes. But some with sysop power are actually the most likely to offend, and who have the power to do grievously offensive things. Are you saying you want actual outing, the assigning of body names to anonymous IP ranges and user IDs (by someone who does not themselves live in that body), to be a real Consumerium Governance Organization policy? If so, you can expect there never to be any Consumerium Services, as those who oppose this policy are quite perfectly capable of technically destroying everything that you ever attempt to build on this basis.
Only senior people know even what is a troll and what they do.
That makes it a category they define and apply only to their enemies. The same as a despot might call someone politically opposed a "terrorist" or a "trouble-maker".
I suspect even trolls do not know why they are doing things the way they do.
Most probably not - they are just reacting to something.
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
The end result will be that, when Consumerpedia becomes "trusted" by anyone, it will be destroyed. Its content will be looted to move elsewhere. There is no room for compromise here, and we don't care who is "scared" or what is "aggressive" from anyone's point of view except those who have actually killed some of us. When that happens, we'll consider slowing down, but Gandhi went full speed until then, and so will we. We have a mission to fulfil here:
If DanKeshet insists on control over things like the terminology in which one describes economic choice or reflexive design, then, he is providing a competing analysis to that of trolls, and this is always fatal to any project. There can only be one such analysis and set of conventions in any set of essential projects. Keshet's emotions don't count, the speed at which the GFDL corpus evolves does - and this is accelerated by trolls and their unifying methods, and disrupted by sysop vigilantiism and sysop vandalism. Trolls have proven they understand and anticipate and pre-solve problems, or at least, get there first. ;-) Sysops have only proven they can set up servers and block IP numbers. Anyone who opposes trolls in their quest for such projects as standard wiki URI, interwiki link standard and interwiki identity standard (and faction support) must be removed from any position of influence. These are obvious constraints that prevent a real wikitext standard or any trust in the GFDL corpus itself.
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?
Absolutely. By offloading search to google, they can actually leave the sysops in more control of deletion, since old articles can be found there - reducing pressure. Also, if full text search were working, people would click through less, and Bomis.com could not make as much use of the clickthroughs:
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?
It should. One of several flaws in the GFDL. Editorial tracks aren't what matter, it's who's reading what after reading what else that really matters - the Markov chains, and finding any consistent paths. Like for instance does one read "essential projects then Recyclopedia" more often than one reads "essential projects then Wikipedia". That would be critical information for anyone who is trying to boost or raise the profile of something, which is what all advertisers want, and what all search engines do.
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)
No. Stupidity increases monotonically until the stupid are disenfranchised or destroyed. That is a natural law. You can see it in evolution, obviously.
To destroy stupidity: antagonize the stupid (only), accelerate stupidity and reactivity to its point of self-destruction, then help the next to move in and take over, until they prove stupid; when they do, repeat the entire process
Trolls are just evolution accelerators: Once someone does something stupid they have one chance only to undo it. Failing to undo it in time makes them stupid, as opposed to just the act being stupid. Then they must be eliminated from all serious projects by whatever means, including psychological warfare (i.e. driven off by trolls) and, if that fails, by violence starting with legal and political harassment. There is no time left for nicer methods. There is a planet to save from non-viability, and if people's feelings are hurt by what must be done to save it, that's too bad, trolls don't care. We have no time to figure out and satisfy everyone's emotions. We only have time to do the job right. If there are more of us, we can have more patience. With so few, we just can't.
It's also far more important to keep destroying good projects (preserving the data) until the right people take them over, then help them succeed, than it is to make good projects work with the wrong people in charge. Most people know what to do, but, the first people to do it are almost always the wrong ones. FOr instance Greenpeace and Adbusters could not have carried their green light projects as far as you have. Though they are troll-friendly orgs, they just don't have the sense of complexity you have, no Lowest Troll mentality - though now with his essay on "which neoconservatives are Jewish", the editor of Adbusters does seem to be becoming a troll.

"What makes Wikipedias current administrative style so repugnant and dangerous is that it teaches the same rules of engagement taught by US commanders - take advantage of temporary technological advantages to solidify outmoded understandings of human behavior. When opposition qualifies as unlawful by improvised battle field rules, attack everything associated with the now-unlawful contributor. Well understood aspects of human behavior have no place in occupied Iraq, nor in occupied Wikipedia. No, these battles are between good and evil, trolls and infinitely righteous admins. Discussion of psychological faults in the system, and introduction of improved rules of engagement is treated as collaboration with the enemy in both cases. We have documented numerous cases of problem-solving dialogue being deleted by leaders..." - w:User_talk:Gun_Shy

In other words, w:technological escalation is actually the religion they share with the Empire. So true. So sad. Hurray for trolls, the only true resisters of both who remain mostly nonviolent (although nasty and menacing).
The terms developer vigilantiism, sysop vigilantiism, sysop vandalism, outing, libel pit, vile mailing list, community point of view, EPOV, etc., were all coined in these troll wars. Best to know the rhetoric so as not to re-invent wheels. We have trollies* all over!
  • "trollies" are as close as any troll ever gets to having "allies"