From the article: Ads would be "threatening to Wikipedia's neutrality," said Michael Bimmler, a 16-year-old high school student who has been a contributor for more than four years and is president of the foundation's Swiss chapter. Readers would be suspicious about articles if ads were near them, he said, and would wonder why certain articles were longer than others.
Let's examine the ramifications of this statement.
Ads would cause people to be suspicious about articles (in much the same way that people are suspicious of the New York Times)? Aight, aight. But the fact that the project is put together by people who haven't even completed their basic education isn't of concern? Michael Bimmler, quoted, would have been 12 when he first contributed to Wikipedia. And that doesn't cause people to distrust the site?
I've had as many nasty disputes with SlimVirgin as the next guy, but seriously. I've seen better drivel on Wikipedia. This ridiculous article amounts to nothing more than a hit piece without a modicum of actual journalism to it.
There may be enough evidence to say that SlimVirgin is the person whom the article claims her to be. There may be enough evidence to suggest that she has some serious conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. There is not enough evidence to suggest that she is an "intelligence agent" of any sort, and to suggest that there is amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theorizing. I've seen much more believable conspiracy theories put out by the GNAA.
Um, what? Wikipedia Review does not involve itself in real-life harassment of Wikipedia cult members. Fact.
Some members do coordinate to determine the identity of certain editors on Wikipedia, this is true. This is perceived as harassment by most Wikipedians, but this is most certainly not criminal. If it is, the question must be asked - why hasn't any action been taken against Wikipedia Review's contributors? The vast majority of them are very open about their identities. If there is criminal action going on, why haven't there been police investigations?
I'll tell you why. Because Wikipedia Review is not engaging in "criminal harassment". This is just a smear that is used to further tarnish a largely unpopular webforum. Much like the early smears insinuating that the vast majority of contributors to the site were naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.
Let's drop the bullshit FUD.
Blatant lie. Wikipedia Review has never - and I do mean *NEVER* - coordinated to harass Wikipedia editors in real life.
The only WR "contributor" who actively engaged in real-life harassment was *banned* from Wikipedia Review nearly a year ago. For engaging in real-life harassment.
Indeed, although I imagine he'll still be involved in the decision-making process in the background, behind the scenes, so as to help Jimbo run his Gestapo state without actually appearing to be present. Much like in the way that Kelly Martin "quit".
(User rights log); 03:21 . . Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) (changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, sysop to boardvote)
"I want to make it perfectly clear that my [previous decision] was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on"
Jimbo making decisions and statements when he has no clue what's really happening? Who would've thunk it?
The new forum? Not so much. The older forum, however, located on proboards, had over 200 members, and growing. It is an open forum for criticism of Wikipedia, and it is (or rather, was, now that the Cabal have decided it cannot be linked under any circumstances, even on non-article pages such as talk pages) a rather valuable reference for people interested in such criticisms. I would not make any case for the new forum to be linked, at all - but the old one, the case was quite solid. The link was removed after trolls hit the old forum and accused everyone and their dog of being either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, mainly because of questions related to the politics of the founder of the board (Igor Alexander), and also a poster by the name of jackwelsh.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: Ads would be "threatening to Wikipedia's neutrality," said Michael Bimmler, a 16-year-old high school student who has been a contributor for more than four years and is president of the foundation's Swiss chapter. Readers would be suspicious about articles if ads were near them, he said, and would wonder why certain articles were longer than others.
Let's examine the ramifications of this statement.
Ads would cause people to be suspicious about articles (in much the same way that people are suspicious of the New York Times)? Aight, aight. But the fact that the project is put together by people who haven't even completed their basic education isn't of concern? Michael Bimmler, quoted, would have been 12 when he first contributed to Wikipedia. And that doesn't cause people to distrust the site?
Mind blown. Humanity is fucked.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY
- Encyclopedia Dramatica's entry on the project
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY/IRL_PROTEST_PAGE
- Encyclopedia Dramatica's entry documenting the protests.
I've had as many nasty disputes with SlimVirgin as the next guy, but seriously. I've seen better drivel on Wikipedia. This ridiculous article amounts to nothing more than a hit piece without a modicum of actual journalism to it.
There may be enough evidence to say that SlimVirgin is the person whom the article claims her to be. There may be enough evidence to suggest that she has some serious conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. There is not enough evidence to suggest that she is an "intelligence agent" of any sort, and to suggest that there is amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theorizing. I've seen much more believable conspiracy theories put out by the GNAA.
Um, what? Wikipedia Review does not involve itself in real-life harassment of Wikipedia cult members. Fact. Some members do coordinate to determine the identity of certain editors on Wikipedia, this is true. This is perceived as harassment by most Wikipedians, but this is most certainly not criminal. If it is, the question must be asked - why hasn't any action been taken against Wikipedia Review's contributors? The vast majority of them are very open about their identities. If there is criminal action going on, why haven't there been police investigations? I'll tell you why. Because Wikipedia Review is not engaging in "criminal harassment". This is just a smear that is used to further tarnish a largely unpopular webforum. Much like the early smears insinuating that the vast majority of contributors to the site were naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews. Let's drop the bullshit FUD.
Well, there is this interesting tidbit on the Wikipedia mailing list, but then again, I seriously doubt that the sender is not a troll.
Blatant lie. Wikipedia Review has never - and I do mean *NEVER* - coordinated to harass Wikipedia editors in real life. The only WR "contributor" who actively engaged in real-life harassment was *banned* from Wikipedia Review nearly a year ago. For engaging in real-life harassment.
i lol'd
Indeed, although I imagine he'll still be involved in the decision-making process in the background, behind the scenes, so as to help Jimbo run his Gestapo state without actually appearing to be present. Much like in the way that Kelly Martin "quit".
(User rights log); 03:21 . . Jon Harald Søby (Talk | contribs) (changed group membership for User:Essjay@enwiki from boardvote, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, sysop to boardvote)
As you were saying?
"I want to make it perfectly clear that my [previous decision] was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on" Jimbo making decisions and statements when he has no clue what's really happening? Who would've thunk it?
The new forum? Not so much. The older forum, however, located on proboards, had over 200 members, and growing. It is an open forum for criticism of Wikipedia, and it is (or rather, was, now that the Cabal have decided it cannot be linked under any circumstances, even on non-article pages such as talk pages) a rather valuable reference for people interested in such criticisms. I would not make any case for the new forum to be linked, at all - but the old one, the case was quite solid. The link was removed after trolls hit the old forum and accused everyone and their dog of being either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer, mainly because of questions related to the politics of the founder of the board (Igor Alexander), and also a poster by the name of jackwelsh.