Whenever any website announces an "exciting upgrade", it usually means they're in the process of screwing up whatever was good about the site before, in favor of whatever their pointy-haired bosses think will make a better business model.
As a noncommercial organization, they should have put their site up at godhatesfags.org instead of the.com address. I hope Anonymous gets 'em good for that!
If it's a truly personal domain, not intended for a commercial purpose, then a.com address wouldn't really make logical sense; better to get a.name or.info address, or.org if you're organized, or maybe something in your local country code like.us or.me.uk.
I'm always trying (with limited success) to get people at work to use RFC-compliant dummy addresses when testing inputs to Web forms where an e-mail address must be supplied. Some "marketing types" absolutely insist on using "test@test.com" all the time, even though that's not one of the compliant dummy addresses. Personally, I always use addresses in the.example dummy TLD when I want nonfunctional test addresses.
These days, lots of cell phones, iPod-like devices, and so on are capable of sending and receiving e-mail, so it's not such a big stretch after all. It's still a really stupid search/seizure, anyway.
I'm tempted to apply the Wikipedia {{fact}} template to ask you to document some of your statements. Are your claims that Byrne/Bagley tried to put viruses on people's computers based on the known incident of his use of a tracking image in an HTML file to find somebody's IP address through server logs... something that's hardly rocket science or even advanced computer science... it's an attribute of any image on an external server that might be found in an HTML file on the Web or e-mail... calling it a "virus" or "spyware" is a gross exaggeration.
The BADSITES pseudo-policy, which for a time led Wikipedia editors to be threatened with being blocked or banned for daring to link to antisocialmedia.net or Wikipedia Review (among other things), was a sterling example of Wikipedia's concept of "openness".
Re: "Yes, Bagley has made some valid points about Wikipedia failures and follies in the past. I can't think of any critic (internal or external) who has simply gone ape and not had any valid points at all ever."...
How about telling that to some of the other top admins, especially JzG (Guy)... he in particular always comes off breathing fire about how there's absolutely no redeeming value in anything any of the banned editors or outside critics or "attack sites" ever say... or even in any ideas that are in any way similar that are expressed by editors in good standing. People like that do their cause more harm than good.
In the talk page of the Gary Weiss article (the article itself is currently under protection so nobody can edit it), lots of highly fallacious arguments are being made by high-ranked admins to shoot down all attempts to put in anything about the issues discussed in the Register article. The line of argument seems to go something like:
1) Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the Weiss article is non-NPOV] 2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser. 3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false. 4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of hand.
Well, the Register's style is overly sensationalized in general, and tends to draw heavily from people with axes to grind (including me in this case). The result is rather slanted, and to be taken with a big grain of salt (just as is true of Wikipedia articles themselves). However, the bigger issue, to me, is the way that Wikipedia insiders react by automatically dismissing articles like this as merely the ravings of properly-banned crackpots, and insisting that critics are always wrong and Wikipedia insiders are, if not always right all the time, still "the good guys" and needing to be reflexively and completely supported against the gang of evil trolls out to get them. This "us vs. them" mentality is the main thing wrong with Wikipedia nowadays.
Speaking as one of the people who was quoted in the article with critical comments about Wikipedia's leadership and policy, I'm certainly not out to "destroy" Wikipedia. I still like Wikipedia, use it as a reference all the time, and enjoy editing it (and hope they don't ban me for saying critical stuff about it). What I don't like is the attitude of certain cliques there, and I hope that articles like this lead to some reform that cuts off their power without destroying the site itself.
Britain seems to still have fully enclosed phone booths; I saw them on the streets of London when I was there a few months ago. They often had phones that functioned as Internet terminals (but this functionality seemed to be out of order as often as not), and were plastered with ads for sex lines, escort services, strip clubs, and the like.
Sometimes the Criticism of Wikipedia page links to Wikipedia Review, sometimes it doesn't; it depends on the state of the eternal edit wars over whether that link should be there or not. At times, top admins have pushed for draconian policies banning any links to that site.
(Yes, I used Wikipedia as a reference, while criticizing it. I still think it's a great reference site; I just dislike some of the people and cliques there.)
The way the WikiClique works can be seen here. A Wikipedia editor, Ashibaka, has a legitimate concern about the copyright status of an image (one that was ultimately vindicated when the image was deleted later), but is ganged up on by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and FeloniousMonk, all fervent supporters of the clique (and probably members of the secret "cyberstalking" list). At one point, FeloniousMonk has the chutzpah to say "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." Yes, it was a one-sided bullying and intimidation, but it's by him and his buddies. "Kelly" here is Kelly Martin, then an administrator (who was trying to step in and stop the fight in a fair and balanced way); she's since become a Wikipedia critic with a very incisive blog.
It's a "cyberstalking" list, started by SlimVirgin, and rumored to be behind some of the big "Clique Gang-Ups" that have occurred when various editors have pursued "Enemies of Wikipedia".
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever any website announces an "exciting upgrade", it usually means they're in the process of screwing up whatever was good about the site before, in favor of whatever their pointy-haired bosses think will make a better business model.
As a noncommercial organization, they should have put their site up at godhatesfags.org instead of the .com address. I hope Anonymous gets 'em good for that!
If they're nonprofit, a .org.au domain would make more logical sense than a .com.au.
If it's a truly personal domain, not intended for a commercial purpose, then a .com address wouldn't really make logical sense; better to get a .name or .info address, or .org if you're organized, or maybe something in your local country code like .us or .me.uk.
I'm always trying (with limited success) to get people at work to use RFC-compliant dummy addresses when testing inputs to Web forms where an e-mail address must be supplied. Some "marketing types" absolutely insist on using "test@test.com" all the time, even though that's not one of the compliant dummy addresses. Personally, I always use addresses in the .example dummy TLD when I want nonfunctional test addresses.
Or maybe it'll even have a PR0N site in it...
The kid in War Games started with altering grades... and proceeded to Global Thermonuclear War!
In Massachusetts in 2009, can calling somebody "gay" really be considered defamatory, given that it's a state that allows gay marriage?
These days, lots of cell phones, iPod-like devices, and so on are capable of sending and receiving e-mail, so it's not such a big stretch after all. It's still a really stupid search/seizure, anyway.
There was a time when the ruling clique of Wikipedia would ban anybody who dared to link to that site.
I'm tempted to apply the Wikipedia {{fact}} template to ask you to document some of your statements. Are your claims that Byrne/Bagley tried to put viruses on people's computers based on the known incident of his use of a tracking image in an HTML file to find somebody's IP address through server logs... something that's hardly rocket science or even advanced computer science... it's an attribute of any image on an external server that might be found in an HTML file on the Web or e-mail... calling it a "virus" or "spyware" is a gross exaggeration.
The BADSITES pseudo-policy, which for a time led Wikipedia editors to be threatened with being blocked or banned for daring to link to antisocialmedia.net or Wikipedia Review (among other things), was a sterling example of Wikipedia's concept of "openness".
...which actually redirects to its real address, wikipedia.org .
Re: "Yes, Bagley has made some valid points about Wikipedia failures and follies in the past. I can't think of any critic (internal or external) who has simply gone ape and not had any valid points at all ever."...
How about telling that to some of the other top admins, especially JzG (Guy)... he in particular always comes off breathing fire about how there's absolutely no redeeming value in anything any of the banned editors or outside critics or "attack sites" ever say... or even in any ideas that are in any way similar that are expressed by editors in good standing. People like that do their cause more harm than good.
In the talk page of the Gary Weiss article (the article itself is currently under protection so nobody can edit it), lots of highly fallacious arguments are being made by high-ranked admins to shoot down all attempts to put in anything about the issues discussed in the Register article. The line of argument seems to go something like:
1) Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the
Weiss article is non-NPOV]
2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser.
3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false.
4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of
hand.
Well, the Register's style is overly sensationalized in general, and tends to draw heavily from people with axes to grind (including me in this case). The result is rather slanted, and to be taken with a big grain of salt (just as is true of Wikipedia articles themselves). However, the bigger issue, to me, is the way that Wikipedia insiders react by automatically dismissing articles like this as merely the ravings of properly-banned crackpots, and insisting that critics are always wrong and Wikipedia insiders are, if not always right all the time, still "the good guys" and needing to be reflexively and completely supported against the gang of evil trolls out to get them. This "us vs. them" mentality is the main thing wrong with Wikipedia nowadays.
Speaking as one of the people who was quoted in the article with critical comments about Wikipedia's leadership and policy, I'm certainly not out to "destroy" Wikipedia. I still like Wikipedia, use it as a reference all the time, and enjoy editing it (and hope they don't ban me for saying critical stuff about it). What I don't like is the attitude of certain cliques there, and I hope that articles like this lead to some reform that cuts off their power without destroying the site itself.
Britain seems to still have fully enclosed phone booths; I saw them on the streets of London when I was there a few months ago. They often had phones that functioned as Internet terminals (but this functionality seemed to be out of order as often as not), and were plastered with ads for sex lines, escort services, strip clubs, and the like.
Sometimes the Criticism of Wikipedia page links to Wikipedia Review, sometimes it doesn't; it depends on the state of the eternal edit wars over whether that link should be there or not. At times, top admins have pushed for draconian policies banning any links to that site.
It's got a little of Kafka's "Trial" in it too.
And a lot of the Twilight Zone episode, The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
(Yes, I used Wikipedia as a reference, while criticizing it. I still think it's a great reference site; I just dislike some of the people and cliques there.)
But, as this shows, the end result of trying to create a pleasant environment for the workforce is to have your butt blown off by the competition!
The way the WikiClique works can be seen here. A Wikipedia editor, Ashibaka, has a legitimate concern about the copyright status of an image (one that was ultimately vindicated when the image was deleted later), but is ganged up on by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and FeloniousMonk, all fervent supporters of the clique (and probably members of the secret "cyberstalking" list). At one point, FeloniousMonk has the chutzpah to say "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." Yes, it was a one-sided bullying and intimidation, but it's by him and his buddies. "Kelly" here is Kelly Martin, then an administrator (who was trying to step in and stop the fight in a fair and balanced way); she's since become a Wikipedia critic with a very incisive blog.
Another interesting Wikipedia-related blog
It's a "cyberstalking" list, started by SlimVirgin, and rumored to be behind some of the big "Clique Gang-Ups" that have occurred when various editors have pursued "Enemies of Wikipedia".
There is a clique in Wikipedia that has tried to censor links to sites they think are "evil". Some people don't like this.
That's not a .com domain; it's in the .fart TLD.
They allowed other registrations at hierarchical levels of .us, like yourname.yourcity.yourstate.us (e.g., yourname.miami.fl.us).