So are you going to stick your head in the sand yet again after being told that there's a problem on Wikipedia? You've done this so many times, break the pattern for once.
Keep believing that Wikipedia is a project to further human knowledge, too.
I completely agree. I couldn't have said it better.
"If you don't like it, leave".
Wikipedia in and of itself was a good idea. Now it's full of POV-pushing, elitism (if you want to call it cabalism, be my guest), admins breaking their own rules (they were "voted" to help enforce them, no?), dominance of difficult people, trolls and their enablers, constant infighting, defamatory material etc. I could go on for hours about what's wrong with Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia, to have one publicly available collection of knowledge has been twisted so many times, it doesn't even resemble what it should be.
They have strayed from the WikiWay - see http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiWay - which is basically 'the community working toward a common goal'. How can the community work together to do anything if there's fighting and disputes all the time?
Wikipedia Review is mostly a collection of users (both active and former) all with one goal in mind: To criticise Wikipedia and suggest changes for the system. Sure there may be a few people who outright attack but that's not representative of most. Painting one group of people with the same brush is never a good idea.
Bear this in mine, mine is the perspective of someone indefinitely blocked for baseless accusations (because many people thought something was true and had no proof to back it up).
From Wikipedia Review: (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=91 26)
First of all, it is not our "policy" to "harass" editors and admins. That is, obviously, a complete lie, which shoots Chairboy's own credibility down right off the bat. It is our informal policy not to automatically censor posts that purport to identify certain Wikipedia admins whose identities might have some bearing on their tendency towards abusive behavior on Wikipedia. And we often do censor identifying or offensive material, only they don't see how often it happens because unlike Wikipedia we don't let people see "revision histories." We're not a wiki, as they often completely fail to understand. That's exactly as far as it goes, folks... Our software is better, our policies are better, our moderators are better, and arguably, our mission is better.
And this business of "coordinated attacks" is pure, out-and-out libel, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So I'm afraid Mr. Chairboy has now put himself on the ever-growing list of Wikipedians who are guilty of criminal activity with respect to our site and its members. As for calling employers, one member did that exactly one time, and that member was subsequently banned for that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is chock-full of peoples' IP addresses, identifying information about "undesirable" users, and attack articles about people disguised as "biographies." Not only is nothing done about this, it's encouraged.
As for comparing us with Nazi medical experiments, don't people like Chairboy realize how utterly and completely moronic that sounds? I mean, irrational hyperbole is one thing, but is this asshole drunk or something?
Offsite comments like this would get people banned, or at the very least desysopped, on a responsible, civilized website. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been one of those.
I would guess there would be some sort of debit/credit card machine built in...hmm, yes I can see the security issues.
Probably just a regular debit/credit card machine, the kind you see in stores.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you going to stick your head in the sand yet again after being told that there's a problem on Wikipedia?
You've done this so many times, break the pattern for once.
Keep believing that Wikipedia is a project to further human knowledge, too.
I completely agree. I couldn't have said it better.
"If you don't like it, leave".
Wikipedia in and of itself was a good idea. Now it's full of POV-pushing, elitism (if you want to call it cabalism, be my guest), admins breaking their own rules (they were "voted" to help enforce them, no?), dominance of difficult people, trolls and their enablers, constant infighting, defamatory material etc. I could go on for hours about what's wrong with Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia, to have one publicly available collection of knowledge has been twisted so many times, it doesn't even resemble what it should be.
They have strayed from the WikiWay - see http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiWay - which is basically 'the community working toward a common goal'. How can the community work together to do anything if there's fighting and disputes all the time?
Wikipedia Review is mostly a collection of users (both active and former) all with one goal in mind: To criticise Wikipedia and suggest changes for the system. Sure there may be a few people who outright attack but that's not representative of most. Painting one group of people with the same brush is never a good idea.
Bear this in mine, mine is the perspective of someone indefinitely blocked for baseless accusations (because many people thought something was true and had no proof to back it up).
From Wikipedia Review: (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=91 26)
First of all, it is not our "policy" to "harass" editors and admins. That is, obviously, a complete lie, which shoots Chairboy's own credibility down right off the bat. It is our informal policy not to automatically censor posts that purport to identify certain Wikipedia admins whose identities might have some bearing on their tendency towards abusive behavior on Wikipedia. And we often do censor identifying or offensive material, only they don't see how often it happens because unlike Wikipedia we don't let people see "revision histories." We're not a wiki, as they often completely fail to understand. That's exactly as far as it goes, folks... Our software is better, our policies are better, our moderators are better, and arguably, our mission is better.
And this business of "coordinated attacks" is pure, out-and-out libel, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So I'm afraid Mr. Chairboy has now put himself on the ever-growing list of Wikipedians who are guilty of criminal activity with respect to our site and its members. As for calling employers, one member did that exactly one time, and that member was subsequently banned for that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia is chock-full of peoples' IP addresses, identifying information about "undesirable" users, and attack articles about people disguised as "biographies." Not only is nothing done about this, it's encouraged.
As for comparing us with Nazi medical experiments, don't people like Chairboy realize how utterly and completely moronic that sounds? I mean, irrational hyperbole is one thing, but is this asshole drunk or
something?
Offsite comments like this would get people banned, or at the very least desysopped, on a responsible, civilized website. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has never been one of those.
I heard about those way back when but I never did have one :^)
I would guess there would be some sort of debit/credit card machine built in...hmm, yes I can see the security issues. Probably just a regular debit/credit card machine, the kind you see in stores.
Yep. As I recall, it was 2600Hz (and that's where 2600 was thought of), at least at the start.
You've got a good point there.
I never thought I'd see the day...