https://mywikibiz.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Moulton&feedformat=atomMyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T07:57:31ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.3https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Akahele&diff=468968Directory:Akahele2019-04-22T13:37:28Z<p>Moulton: Update the URL of the archive copy of a decade-old essay on "Guilt, Shame, and Remorse"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Akahele}}<br />
'''''Akahele''''' was the blog published by the [[Directory:Internet Review Corporation|Internet Review Corporation]] throughout much of 2009. It was authored by Gregory Kohs, Paul Wehage, Anthony DiPierro, and Judd Bagley. It was found at [http://www.Akahele.org Akahele.org]; however, the site was taken down after the non-profit corporation was allowed to dissolve. Substantial content by Kohs and Wehage is now copied to this forum for posterity.<br />
<br />
==Article archives==<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Akahele is your Internet watchdog]] - Gregory Kohs, February 15, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The more things change...]] - Paul Wehage, February 23, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation]] - Gregory Kohs, March 16, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder]] - Paul Wehage, March 23, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers]] - Gregory Kohs, April 13, 2009.<br />
* [http://hnc.musenet.info/~bkort/Akahele-Guilt-Shame-Remorse.html Guilt, Shame, and Remorse] - Barry Kort, April 20, 2009<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture]] - Paul Wehage, April 27, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Survey says...]] - Gregory Kohs, May 18, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm]] - Paul Wehage, May 26, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!]] - Paul Wehage, June 5, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington]] - Gregory Kohs, June 15, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The Real “Second Life”]] - Gregory Kohs, June 18, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the “new reality”]] - Paul Wehage, June 22, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?]] - Gregory Kohs, July 20, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?]] - Paul Wehage, July 29, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards]] - Gregory Kohs, August 3, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0]] - Paul Wehage, August 17, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving]] - Gregory Kohs, August 21, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out]] - Gregory Kohs, August 31, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikimedia Foundation subletting space?]] - Gregory Kohs, September 4, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past]] - Paul Wehage, September 22, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles]] - Gregory Kohs, October 3, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions]] - Gregory Kohs, October 6, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy]] - Gregory Kohs, November 6, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Ron Livingston battles phantom defendant]] - Gregory Kohs, December 8, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Nobody’s watching]] - Gregory Kohs, January 6, 2010.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Tilikum and Wikipedia]] - Gregory Kohs, February 25, 2010.</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Akahele&diff=135181Directory:Akahele2011-04-13T21:12:28Z<p>Moulton: /* Article archives */ Guilt, Shame, and Remorse - Barry Kort, April 20, 2009</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Akahele}}<br />
'''''Akahele''''' was the blog published by the [[Directory:Internet Review Corporation|Internet Review Corporation]] throughout much of 2009. It was authored by Gregory Kohs, Paul Wehage, Anthony DiPierro, and Judd Bagley. It was found at [http://www.Akahele.org Akahele.org]; however, the site was taken down after the non-profit corporation was allowed to dissolve. Substantial content by Kohs and Wehage is now copied to this forum for posterity.<br />
<br />
==Article archives==<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Akahele is your Internet watchdog]] - Gregory Kohs, February 15, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The more things change...]] - Paul Wehage, February 23, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The persistence of misinformation]] - Gregory Kohs, March 16, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/In the eye of the beholder]] - Paul Wehage, March 23, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Searching for answers]] - Gregory Kohs, April 13, 2009.<br />
* [http://hnc.musenet.org/~bkort/Akahele-Guilt-Shame-Remorse.html Guilt, Shame, and Remorse] - Barry Kort, April 20, 2009<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The trade of free culture]] - Paul Wehage, April 27, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Survey says...]] - Gregory Kohs, May 18, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The anonymous swarm]] - Paul Wehage, May 26, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Akahele creates Wikipedia Art!]] - Paul Wehage, June 5, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia goes to Washington]] - Gregory Kohs, June 15, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The Real “Second Life”]] - Gregory Kohs, June 18, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Connectivity, Intent and the “new reality”]] - Paul Wehage, June 22, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Where in the world was Mike Ilitch?]] - Gregory Kohs, July 20, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The Singularity is near, but does it matter?]] - Paul Wehage, July 29, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Conflicted boards]] - Gregory Kohs, August 3, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Gender bending, 2.0]] - Paul Wehage, August 17, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving]] - Gregory Kohs, August 21, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Omidyar venturing out]] - Gregory Kohs, August 31, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Wikimedia Foundation subletting space?]] - Gregory Kohs, September 4, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/MIT students prove that privacy is a thing of the past]] - Paul Wehage, September 22, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Ten new Wikipedia articles]] - Gregory Kohs, October 3, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/PhotoSketch creates mystic visions]] - Gregory Kohs, October 6, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/The State of the Human Economy]] - Gregory Kohs, November 6, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Ron Livingston battles phantom defendant]] - Gregory Kohs, December 8, 2009.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Nobody’s watching]] - Gregory Kohs, January 6, 2010.<br />
* [[Directory:Akahele/Tilikum and Wikipedia]] - Gregory Kohs, February 25, 2010.</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MyWikiBiz&diff=130019User talk:MyWikiBiz2010-11-24T09:47:40Z<p>Moulton: /* The Letter */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Past discussions are archived here''':<br />
<br />
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''<br />
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''<br />
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''<br />
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''<br />
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 5|Archive 5]] ''(January 2009 - December 2009)''<br />
<br />
==Aricle not doing well in google==<br />
<br />
this article [[Sarey Savy]] is number 15 on google i need to make it number one! Help! please?! ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 21:06, 11 February 2010 (PST))<br />
: You just created it. It may take some time to get to #1. Also, it will help if you go to other websites (Facebook, MySpace, Wikia, etc.) and try to get an external link placed FROM there TO this article here. I will look at the [[Sarey Savy]] page and see if I can help matters with the semantic tagging in the article. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:00, 12 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
Thanks man this is WAY better than Wikipedia =] If i could give away awards for best wikis i would give you millions and you'd win all the time =] ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 08:42, 12 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
Oh it's decreasing it's rank on google. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:08, 12 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
Why is it decreasing? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:47, 12 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
:It probably senses your panic. Seriously, calm down -- these things take time. And there's no saying that this page is going to go to #1 -- there's already a page on MySpace and on Facebook. They tend to perform stronger than MyWikiBiz. Have you set up any inbound, "dofollow" links on other sites? -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:52, 12 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
Yes it is linked on myspace facebook etc. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 14:03, 12 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
What can i do to improve the google ranking? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 21:40, 12 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
:Mr. Chen, may I ask how old are you? Please [http://www.slideshare.net/bencrothers/10-tips-to-boost-your-google-ranking read this] and follow what you learn there. These are basic tips for boosting the Google ranking of a site or page you wish to optimize. Good luck! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:51, 13 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
Thanks! It's number 3 on google ranking! Can't you take the Directory talk out? ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 10:37, 13 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
Okay it fell down it's not even on google!!! I just deleted my history and everything then the next thing you know Sarey Savy-Mywikibiz is GONE! ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 16:01, 14 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
The directory doesn't show up but, yet when i take the directory out it does at number 3. ([[User:Michael Chen|Michael Chen]] 09:39, 15 February 2010 (PST))<br />
<br />
== Problems With SVG Images ==<br />
<br />
Hi, Greg, there's some kind of problem with SVG images. Maybe we're a couple of MediaWiki updates behind?<br />
<br />
* Here's my test page: http://mywikibiz.com/User:Jon_Awbrey/SVG<br />
<br />
* Here's what it should look like: http://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/SVG<br />
<br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 10:50, 16 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
:We will look into it and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Image_Administration#SVG seek a repair]. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:42, 16 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Can you please explain to me what your site is for?==<br />
I don't want to break any rules here. I really don't want to be banned from here. They banned me at wikipedia review and it just hurt my feelings even more. I would like to help out here, but I don't want any more bans because it makes me feel bad. I guess I have a very big problem with following or understanding site rules, so if you could please help me out with what you expect here and what this is for - before I do anything wrong and get banned I would appreciate it.[[User:Wiki Greek Basketball|Wiki Greek Basketball]] 12:45, 19 February 2010 (PST)<br />
:[http://www.mywikibiz.com/Help:Introduction This page] should answer most of your questions. I'm happy that you're here. Not looking to ban you. In fact, three of the four top contributors to MyWikiBiz.com are blocked on Wikipedia. You basically have a lot of options here, but the first thing you need to square away is whether you are going to try to make a little bit of money here (more effort and slightly more rules to obey), or whether money is not of interest to you (easier, and fewer rules to stay on top of). -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:10, 19 February 2010 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Wikia ==<br />
<br />
Do you suppose Wikia would be profitable by now, or ever if Wikipedia did not tag Wikia links with the "nofollow" tag for however long? Do you know for how long they were not tagged with "nofollow"? <br />
<br />
I saw that you posted this link, I think on WR:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=20000&target=http://*.wikia.com<br />
<br />
So there are like 22,000 Wikia links? Wow. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]<br />
<br />
:Considering that Wikia is only barely profitable at this time (and with $14 million sunk into it, and likely very little of that recuperated), I would honestly suggest that Wikia would not be profitable by now if they hadn't had the early and ongoing boost(s) from Wikipedia-based link relevance and traffic. If you add to this how often Jimmy Wales has traveled on purportedly a Wikimedia Foundation "mission", but manages to talk about Wikia even briefly to large audiences, then I am absolutely certain Wikia would be well underwater without that self-promotional boost. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 09:18, 18 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: But it is probably legal to do things like that I suppose? I am not a lawyer. I have no idea. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]<br />
<br />
::: Oh, I'm sure it's legal... up until the point the IRS decides to conduct an audit of either your personal or your corporation's taxes. But, regardless; the real point is when you consider how Wales speaks so glowingly of his free (and freewill) contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation mission (with no mention of how he's appropriated that mission to almost entirely drive his personal fortunes), his character is revealed to be that of a hypocrite when he speaks with revulsion about those who would "exploit" Wikipedia for profit. You're smart enough to see through that phony baloney, right? -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:15, 18 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
:::: Self deception maybe? Or maybe just the way capitalism has to work? [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]<br />
<br />
== Wikademia and Wikieducator ==<br />
<br />
I'm sure you'd be welcome to edit on both of those. [[User:Wikademia|Wikademia]]<br />
<br />
:Have you seen the Alexa ratings of WikiEducator? They are a bit lower than MyWikiBiz. I'd reach more people working here. As for Wikademia, let me know when it reaches the top million on Alexa. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:50, 21 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Hi MyWikiBiz ==<br />
<br />
I would like to edit the article 'Greg James Sculpture Studio Gallery' but it appears to be locked. The article was created by Peter Z. who doesn't seem to have any problems in editing it. My menu bar displays on the article 'View Source'. Can you please help? [[User:Greg James Sculpture|Greg James Sculpture]] 21:11, 31 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
:It is open now to your being able to edit it. However, be advised, once you make an edit, you will become the "owner" of the article (because it's in Directory space), and others (including Peter) will not have access to edit. That's how our Directory space is set up at MyWikiBiz -- it's intended to be one-editor-only. If the two of you are both equally interested in editing it, I would suggest creating a joint account between you and share the password. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:30, 31 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
:: Thank you [[User:Greg James Sculpture|Greg James Sculpture]] 21:47, 31 March 2010 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Title Help ==<br />
Hi MyWikiBiz! Could you please help me. I've created a new article & left a dot at the end of the title: [[Directory:Robert Dawkins-The Silver Gallery.]] Is their a way of removing the dot, because I can't figure out how to do it? Regards:) [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 19:34, 7 April 2010 (PDT)<br />
: I have moved it to [[Directory:Robert_Dawkins-The_Silver_Gallery|a new location]], sans period. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 04:55, 8 April 2010 (PDT)<br />
:: Thanks. [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 05:38, 8 April 2010 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Help:SMW ==<br />
<br />
There is a note on one of my pages which says that ASK is no longer supported but to use 'SMW'. Is there any documentation on this pls? (Couldn't find any). [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[edit] Does [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries this] have anything to do with it? If I can figure this out I will add some help files. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, that is exactly the page I was going to point you to, Ockham. This was one of the most frustrating aspects of our transfer to a new server host and a complete upgrade/update to both the most current Mediawiki core software, but also the most current Semantic Mediawiki extension that used to run all of our Attributes and Relations. Now, both Attributes and Relations are lumped into a new field called "Properties". And instead of using a := for Attributes, all Properties now need a :: instruction. I'm going to be hiring a coder to try to make some of these universal, global changes to try to make things a bit more polished around here. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
:: Hi thanks. I [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=List_of_medieval_philosophers&oldid=116947 tested] the medieval philosophers query with the SMW syntax but still doesn't work. I think it needs a professional to set us on the right road and then we can take it from there. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[edit] ah my mistake. It does work (see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=List_of_medieval_philosophers this version] of the page). [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
{edit] The key is to remember that it doesn't support the '=<' sign. '<' in SMW means 'less or equal to'. Otherwise you get the bug. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===How about this===<br />
<br />
I think SMW is going to be more powerful than ASK. I have created a new version of [[List_of_Scholastic_Texts]], which as you can see now supports links to the authors, which the old version never did. <br />
<br />
I am going to experiment with catalogues of medieval manuscripts. I have a digitised version of M.R.James catologue of manuscripts held in Gonville and Caius' library. This has details of condition, production date or century, lists of Authors and so on. There are currently projects to take catalogues like these and use professional software developers in the old-fahshioned and expensive way, to build large and difficult-to-maintain databases that only professional developers (rather than users) can understand. Using environments like this, you hardly need developers. A team of users and experts working together can quickly build a database that is far easier to use and far more transparent than any expensive database developed in the traditional IT-led way.<br />
<br />
The problem is to get the users (i.e. medievalists or whoever) to understand how powerful this can be, and how easy to use. I will make some experiments with the James catalogue and if this works I will publish something in 'Digital Medievalist'. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I agree that while this was a painful upgrade, the opportunities for even better uses of the Semantic architecture are worth it. I am very, very pleased (you don't know how much) that a "regular user" figured this out and will be setting an example for others. I'm going to be hiring the coder later today or tomorrow, and I hope that he'll do quite a lot to help "clean up" the old messes left behind by the upgrade. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, it's no problem. I also succeeded in setting up [[List_of_medieval_manuscripts]] as mentioned above. This points to pages like [[Directory:Logic_Museum/Caius_344/540]] which are a much better way of structuring information than in the old [[Directory:Logic_Museum/Manuscripts]], which is the old Wikipedia-style of hard-coding a list of things that cannot be sorted or filtered or categorised. If I have time I will write a little 1-2-3 tutorial that will take someone used to the old ways and show them the new way. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Access to The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View ==<br />
<br />
Hi Greg I have lost edit rights to [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View|The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View]]. I can edit subdirectories of it, and other directories I own, but not this. Oddly, Peter Z seems able to edit it. How strange. I was going to start a subdirectory on terrible economics articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 17:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Try again. We're working on this issue. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
:: No. Still 'View source' only.[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
==Problems with my articles==<br />
<br />
Hi MyWikiBiz! There are problems with my articles. What do you think is going on? [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Titoism_and_Totalitarianism link] [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This one too. [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales link] [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 01:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Hello Greg==<br />
How are you doing? Would it be ok if i posted some pages here that i made elsewhere? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
:I also noticed your paid wiki-gnome thread, but how do you send money to people online, and is it valid for people who live outside the USA? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
I think it's okay to post pages that you made elsewhere, as long as you have rights to do so, and that the pages don't violate our own [[Help:General_disclaimer|terms of service]]. Payment for wiki-gnoming can be via PayPal.com, or via a mailed commercial check drawn in US dollars on a US bank. If neither of those options work, then I'm not sure how to transact. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
::So in theory, i just have to set up a pre-paid card with PayPal and then it's all good for transferring money, from any country to any country? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
:::I'm sure certain limitations and restrictions apply, so see PayPal.com for details. However, I know that I have transacted payments internationally on PayPal, multiple times. As for this particular wiki-gnoming project, though... I believe I have another taker working on it now. For a $15 ''Om nom nom nom'' payment to the Wikimedia Foundation. Ugh. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::''Om nom nom nom''? ... Well for my part give 1 dollar to the WMF with a comment like "Wikipedia keeps being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear_fetishism child] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia friendly] with appropriate pictures for an encyclopedia" or something like that. The other 14 dollars could go to [http://scoobysworkshop.com/support.htm this], he puts a lot of time for his non-profit hobby to give advice on how to fight obesity and sedentary lifestiles. Also, if you donate 200 $ or more to him, he will give you a t-shirt. [[User:Raf|Raf]] 19:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Regarding the possible pages i can import here, they're mostly not business related and are quite obscure topics, to which i have no relation at all. Since there are pages like [[Directory:Quasi Brands]], would they be fine here? [[User:Raf|Raf]] 21:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::Raf, did you read the [[Help:General_disclaimer|terms of service]]? Here, we seek to fashion this site as a safe, pleasant environment for gentle people of ages 13 and older. The management reserves the right to delete the following sorts of content at any time: pornography, adult or mature content, pedophilia or the advocacy of pedophilia, illegal gambling or wagering, gratuitous violence, hate speech, fraudulent information, and business scams. Editors who self-identify as proponents or behave in a way that strongly suggests they are proponents of any of these topics will be blocked indefinitely. These types of content are also restricted by Google AdSense, and because AdSense currently displays on many editors' content pages on MyWikiBiz, we cannot jeopardize AdSense account(s) with such prohibited content. If your obscure content doesn't seem to ruffle these terms, you should be fine. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 03:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Letter ==<br />
<br />
Title: '''The Letter'''<BR><br />
Artist: '''Greg Kohs'''<BR><br />
Composer: '''Wayne Carson Thompson and Barsoom Tork Associates'''<BR><br />
YouTube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lIxvIUz4aY '''The Letter'''] — The Box Tops (1967)<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Gimme a tax break for a donation,<BR><br />
My column's more fun than Sony PlayStation.<BR><br />
Boring days are gone, I'm a-goin' strong,<BR><br />
'Cause Jimbo just wrote me a letter.<BR><br />
<BR><br />
I don't care how much money he's gotta spend,<BR><br />
Getting back to New York again<BR><br />
Boring days are gone, my column's going strong,<BR><br />
'Cause Jimbo just wrote me a letter.<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Well, he wrote me a letter<BR><br />
Said he couldn't fly without some more dough.<BR><br />
Listen friends, can't you see he's got to get back<BR><br />
To New York once more --anyway...<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Gimme a tax break for a donation,<BR><br />
My column's more fun than Sony PlayStation.<BR><br />
Boring days are gone, I'm a-goin' strong,<BR><br />
'Cause Jimbo just wrote me a letter.<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Well, he wrote me a letter<BR><br />
Said he couldn't fly without some more dough.<BR><br />
Listen critics, can't you see we got to get back<BR><br />
To Wikimania once more --anyway...<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Gimme a tax break for a donation,<BR><br />
My column's more fun than Sony PlayStation.<BR><br />
Boring days are gone, my column's going strong,<BR><br />
'Cause Jimbo just wrote me a letter.<BR><br />
Because Jimbo just wrote me a letter.<BR><br />
<BR><br />
<BR><Small><br />
''CopyClef 2010 Wayne Carson Thompson and Barsoom Tork Associates.''<BR><br />
''Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.''</Small><BR></div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:MyWikiBiz_popular_image_contest&diff=125696Directory:MyWikiBiz popular image contest2010-10-01T23:33:00Z<p>Moulton: /* We have a winner! */ Yay!</p>
<hr />
<div>==Contest time!==<br />
<br />
<div style="float:right;margin-right:0.9em"><br />
[[Image:200 dollars.jpg|125px]]<br />
</div>We're asking our editors to guess which image found on MyWikiBiz is clicked by visitors to be copied, saved, or downloaded to their computers more than any other image. Note, we're not talking about a simple "page load" with the image on the page -- we're talking about users manually clicking the image. Each editor may submit three guesses. The contest closes at midnight Eastern time, September 30, 2010. The respondent who submits the first correct guess will win a '''<font color="green">$50 cash prize</font color="green">''' -- no strings attached.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
''Need some '''hints'''?''<br />
<br />
*It is not a photograph of a woman.<br />
*The image contains warm coloration.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
The data used to determine this statistic was drawn from a sample of the 500 most recent downloads, as of August 31, 2010.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
Where would someone even begin? Well, you may start your search in our [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&from=&namespace=6 list of Files]. When you're ready to make your three guesses, write them up on [[Directory talk:MyWikiBiz popular image contest|this directory's Discussion page]], and be sure to sign your entry with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), so that your guesses are time-stamped.<br />
<br />
Not a registered editor on MyWikiBiz? Register now, [[Help:Registration|right here]].<br />
<br />
=={{Blink|text='''<font color="red">Good luck!!!</font color="red">}}==<br />
<br />
==We have a winner!==<br />
Our contest has drawn to a close, and we have a champion -- [[User:Moulton]], with his sagely guess of <nowiki>File:Html color chart.gif</nowiki>:<br />
<gallery><br />
image:Html color chart.gif<br />
</gallery><br />
So, congratulations, Moulton... your $50 will soon be on its way to you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Yay! :) [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 23:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=125692User talk:Moulton2010-10-01T23:26:40Z<p>Moulton: /* Congratulations */ Yay!</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
==Congratulations==<br />
You won $50 for correctly guessing <br />
<gallery><br />
image:Html color chart.gif<br />
</gallery><br />
Will contact you by e-mail. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 23:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Yay! :) [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory_talk:MyWikiBiz_popular_image_contest&diff=123533Directory talk:MyWikiBiz popular image contest2010-09-01T17:49:10Z<p>Moulton: 1) File:Html color chart.gif. 2) File:Flag of the United States.svg. 3) File:Flag of Canada.svg</p>
<hr />
<div>==Your contest guesses here==<br />
<br />
# Example File name #1. Example File name #2. Example File name #3. (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
# Guesses: 1.) File:SteveSmithShirtless.jpg; 2.) File:1935 Mickey Mouse (ing) (promo) 01.jpg; 3.) File:200 dollars.jpg [[User:Horsey|Horsey]] 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br />
# 1) File:Html color chart.gif. 2) File:Flag of the United States.svg. 3) File:Flag of Canada.svg. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory_talk:Wikipedia_Response_Testing&diff=116856Directory talk:Wikipedia Response Testing2010-05-04T03:02:10Z<p>Moulton: Example: Les Pisérables</p>
<hr />
<div>See, for example, this short-lived [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Les_Mis%C3%A9rables&oldid=272932655#Parody attempt at adding a parody] (''Les Pisérables'') to ''Les Misérables''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales&diff=81422Talk:Criticism of Jimmy Wales2009-03-11T19:56:51Z<p>Moulton: Ego Fried Their Brains</p>
<hr />
<div>==Search result==<br />
Congratulations! Someone from British Columbia arrived on this article after searching for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=Jimmy%20wales%20criticism Jimmy wales criticism] and finding this page at # 1 out of 1,340,000 pages returned. Way to go! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:48, 31 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Jimbo Wales, Superstar ==<br />
<br />
:Title: '''Jimbo Wales, Superstar'''<br />
:Artist: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton '''Moulton''']<br />
:Composer: '''Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx/?ownerInfo@@.1de35bac Barsoom Tork Associates]'''<br />
:Midi: [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/JesusChristSuperstar.mid '''Jesus Christ, Superstar''']<br />
<br />
:Every time [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483109,00.html I look at you] I don't understand<br />
:Why you let the site you (co-)founded get so out of hand.<br />
<br />
:You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.<br />
:Why'd you make such a stupid move to have [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/:User_talk:JWSchmidt/Second_half_2008_discussions#Moulton Moulton banned]?<br />
<br />
:If you'd thought it through you could have taught a whole nation<br />
:The [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/en.wv.Moulton.html#Drama_Engines art of dramaturgy] with psycho-communication.<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as we think you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose talk page has your crew defaced?<br />
<br />
:Tell me what you think about your friends on the beat.<br />
:Would you like to have a [http://allswool.blogspot.com/search?q=massage+parlor+Moscow Russian masseuse] beat your meat?<br />
:Was IDCab where it's at? Was [http://www.linkedin.com/in/pauljmitchell FM your fave star]?<br />
:Could Sue Gardner move a mountain, or was that just PR?<br />
:Did you [http://valleywag.gawker.com/192595/tech/wikipedia/hey-wiki-youre-so-fine-a-guide-to-wikipedia-media dress like the Red Queen]? Was that a mistake, or<br />
:Did you know that [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bdb/0 Essjay's fall] would be a heart breaker?<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as they say you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose BLP has your site defaced?<br />
<br />
:<small>CopyClef 2009 Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and Barsoom Tork Associates.<br>[http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx/Resurrection%20Hackware/ Resurrection Hackware]. All wrongs reversed.</small><br />
<br />
=== Moulton, it's a hit! ===<br />
I don't know if it's because JCS is my favorite musical, but this is the first Barsoom Tork Associates ditty that I've really, sincerely enjoyed! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:26, 6 February 2009 (PST)<br />
: You really should get out more. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:28, 7 February 2009 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Ego Fried Their Brains ==<br />
<br />
Title: '''Ego Fried Their Brains'''<BR><br />
Artist: '''JzG, David Gerard, and the Sycophants'''<BR><br />
Composer: '''Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, GlassBeadGame, and Barsoom Tork Associates'''<BR><br />
YouTube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNoiQ8LkS8 '''Heaven On Their Minds''']<BR><br />
Midi: [http://www.dosguys.com/JCS/MIDI/1-2_HOTM-RA.mid '''Heaven On Their Minds''']<BR><br />
<BR><br />
My mind is fuzzy now<BR><br />
At last<BR><br />
All too well<BR><br />
I can tell<BR><br />
Where we all<BR><br />
Soon will be<BR><br />
If you strip away<BR><br />
The mask<BR><br />
From the clan<BR><br />
You will see<BR><br />
Where we all<BR><br />
Soon will be<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Jimbo!<BR><br />
You've started to reprise<BR><br />
The tragedies of yore<BR><br />
Why on earth did you revise<BR><br />
The bio of your whore?<BR><br />
<BR><br />
And all the good we've done<BR><br />
Will soon be swept away<BR><br />
Jon's begun to chatter more<BR><br />
About the closing day<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Listen Jimbo<BR><br />
I don't like what I see<BR><br />
All I ask is that you listen to me<BR><br />
And remember<BR><br />
I've been your right hand man all along<BR><br />
They all follow you on Twitter<BR><br />
But you're not their baby sitter<BR><br />
And I'll be butt hurt if Moulton sings this song<BR><br />
<BR><br />
I remember when this whole thing began<BR><br />
No talk of fursuits, we called for a plan<BR><br />
And believe me<BR><br />
My indignation has not been gainsaid<BR><br />
But every word you say today<BR><br />
Gets twisted 'round some crazy way<BR><br />
And they hound you in the rags for getting laid<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Wikipedia's most famous son<BR><br />
Should have stayed a great unknown<BR><br />
Like a stupid retard<BR><br />
You dissed Larry and Ward<BR><br />
Zoo sex, yachts, and babes with chests<BR><br />
Would have suited Jimbo best<BR><br />
He'd have caused nobody harm<BR><br />
Down on the farm<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Listen Jimbo, do you care to survive?<BR><br />
Don't you see we must knock off this jive?<BR><br />
We are vandalized<BR><br />
Have you forgotten how disgraced we are?<BR><br />
I am frightened by the crowd<BR><br />
Plus the music's much too loud<BR><br />
And they'll sue us if we go too far<BR><br />
If we go too far<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Listen Jimbo to the warning I give<BR><br />
There's a pissed admin at your back with a shiv<BR><br />
But it's sad to see our fortunes falling with every shot<BR><br />
All your followers are lame<BR><br />
Too much ego fried their brains<BR><br />
It was wonderful, but now it's not so hot<BR><br />
Yes it's all gone bitter<BR><br />
Ah --- ah ah ah --- ah<BR><br />
God-King Jimbo, it's all over Twitter<BR><br />
<BR><br />
Listen Jimbo to the warning I dread<BR><br />
Can't you see there's an iceberg ahead<BR><br />
So come on, come on, listen to me.<BR><br />
Ah --- ah<BR><br />
Come on, listen, listen to me.<BR><br />
Come on and listen to me.<BR><br />
Ah --- ah<BR><br />
<BR><Small><br />
CopyClef 2009 Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, GlassBeadGame, and Barsoom Tork Associates.<BR><br />
Resurrection Hackware. All wrongs reversed.</Small></div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales&diff=81118Talk:Criticism of Jimmy Wales2009-03-11T14:25:43Z<p>Moulton: /* Jimbo Wales, Superstar */ Update some stale links.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Search result==<br />
Congratulations! Someone from British Columbia arrived on this article after searching for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=Jimmy%20wales%20criticism Jimmy wales criticism] and finding this page at # 1 out of 1,340,000 pages returned. Way to go! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:48, 31 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Jimbo Wales, Superstar ==<br />
<br />
:Title: '''Jimbo Wales, Superstar'''<br />
:Artist: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton '''Moulton''']<br />
:Composer: '''Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx/?ownerInfo@@.1de35bac Barsoom Tork Associates]'''<br />
:Midi: [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/JesusChristSuperstar.mid '''Jesus Christ, Superstar''']<br />
<br />
:Every time [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483109,00.html I look at you] I don't understand<br />
:Why you let the site you (co-)founded get so out of hand.<br />
<br />
:You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.<br />
:Why'd you make such a stupid move to have [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/:User_talk:JWSchmidt/Second_half_2008_discussions#Moulton Moulton banned]?<br />
<br />
:If you'd thought it through you could have taught a whole nation<br />
:The [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/%7Ebkort/en.wv.Moulton.html#Drama_Engines art of dramaturgy] with psycho-communication.<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as we think you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose talk page has your crew defaced?<br />
<br />
:Tell me what you think about your friends on the beat.<br />
:Would you like to have a [http://allswool.blogspot.com/search?q=massage+parlor+Moscow Russian masseuse] beat your meat?<br />
:Was IDCab where it's at? Was [http://www.linkedin.com/in/pauljmitchell FM your fave star]?<br />
:Could Sue Gardner move a mountain, or was that just PR?<br />
:Did you [http://valleywag.gawker.com/192595/tech/wikipedia/hey-wiki-youre-so-fine-a-guide-to-wikipedia-media dress like the Red Queen]? Was that a mistake, or<br />
:Did you know that [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bdb/0 Essjay's fall] would be a heart breaker?<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as they say you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose BLP has your site defaced?<br />
<br />
:<small>CopyClef 2009 Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and Barsoom Tork Associates.<br>[http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx/Resurrection%20Hackware/ Resurrection Hackware]. All wrongs reversed.</small><br />
<br />
=== Moulton, it's a hit! ===<br />
I don't know if it's because JCS is my favorite musical, but this is the first Barsoom Tork Associates ditty that I've really, sincerely enjoyed! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 07:26, 6 February 2009 (PST)<br />
: You really should get out more. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:28, 7 February 2009 (PST)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales&diff=78540Talk:Criticism of Jimmy Wales2009-02-06T12:39:34Z<p>Moulton: Jimbo Wales, Superstar</p>
<hr />
<div>==Search result==<br />
Congratulations! Someone from British Columbia arrived on this article after searching for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&q=Jimmy%20wales%20criticism Jimmy wales criticism] and finding this page at # 1 out of 1,340,000 pages returned. Way to go! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:48, 31 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Jimbo Wales, Superstar ==<br />
<br />
:Title: '''Jimbo Wales, Superstar'''<br />
:Artist: [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/:User:Moulton '''Moulton''']<br />
:Composer: '''Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/:User:Moulton/Barsoom_Tork Barsoom Tork Associates]'''<br />
:Midi: [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/JesusChristSuperstar.mid '''Jesus Christ, Superstar''']<br />
<br />
:Every time [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483109,00.html I look at you] I don't understand<br />
:Why you let the site you (co-)founded get so out of hand.<br />
<br />
:You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.<br />
:Why'd you make such a stupid move to have [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/:User_talk:JWSchmidt/Second_half_2008_discussions#Moulton Moulton banned]?<br />
<br />
:If you'd thought it through you could have taught a whole nation<br />
:The [http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/ art of dramaturgy] with psycho-communication.<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as we think you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose talk page has your crew defaced?<br />
<br />
:Tell me what you think about your friends on the beat.<br />
:Would you like to have a [http://allswool.blogspot.com/search?q=massage+parlor+Moscow Russian masseuse] beat your meat?<br />
:Was IDCab was where it's at? Was [http://www.linkedin.com/ppl/webprofile?action=vmi&id=11129559 FM your fave star]?<br />
:Could Sue Gardner move a mountain, or was that just PR?<br />
:Did you [http://valleywag.gawker.com/192595/tech/wikipedia/hey-wiki-youre-so-fine-a-guide-to-wikipedia-media dress like the Red Queen]? Was that a mistake, or<br />
:Did you know that [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bdb/0 Essjay's fall] would be a heart breaker?<br />
<br />
:Don't you get me wrong.<br />
:I only want to know...<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, Superstar,<br />
:Are you really as nuts as they say you are?<br />
<br />
:Jimbo Wales, now disgraced,<br />
:Whose BLP has your site defaced?<br />
<br />
:<small>CopyClef 2009 Tim Rice, Andrew Lloyd Weber, and Barsoom Tork Associates.<br>Resurrection Hackware. All wrongs reversed.</small></div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia&diff=76334Top 10 Reasons Not to Donate to Wikipedia2009-01-03T15:55:46Z<p>Moulton: /* External Links */ Eleventh and Twelfth Reasons Not to Fund WMF Projects</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
==1. Your donation will fund Wikia, Inc., which is not a charity.==<br />
Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google, the Bessemer Partners, and other corporate beneficiaries. How? Wikipedia is a commercial traffic engine. As of December 2008, there are over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=10000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikia.com 14,300 external links] from Wikipedia to Wales' Wikia.com sites, which are funded by Google AdSense revenues. Did you know that Amazon invested $10,000,000 in the for-profit Wikia venture? It's therefore rather interesting that there are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=40000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.amazon.com over 43,000 links] to Amazon's retail site from the supposedly non-profit Wikipedia site. Isn't it? Meanwhile, did you know that the popular movie site IMDB.com is owned by Amazon, and you can buy Amazon products directly from IMDB pages? Well, surprise surprise -- there are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=170000&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.IMDB.com nearly 174,000 links to Amazon's IMDB site] from Wikipedia. No wonder Amazon particularly wished to invest in Wikia, Inc. Its co-founder makes sure that the external linking environment on Wikipedia is hospitable for the Amazon link spamming machine! <br><br> Now here is the really fascinating thing. If you go to Jimmy Wales' "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales talk page]" on Wikipedia, and you ask him whether he feels that this obscene number of links to his for-profit site and those of his investors might be a ''conflict of interest'' or ''self-dealing'', Jimbo won't even have time to respond. One or two of his sycophants will fairly promptly dismiss or erase your message; and if you try one more time to ask this question, you're likely to get blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether. Go ahead, try it!<br />
<br />
==2. Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.==<br />
While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?<br />
<br />
==3. Why not donate to Citizendium instead? They insist on real-world credentials.== <br />
Citizendium is a new encyclopedia project founded by a co-founder of Wikipedia. There, the editors do disclose who they are in real life. You probably donated to Wikipedia last year, so why not spread the wealth to new projects like Citizendium this year? <br />
<br />
==4. Wikipedia alleged that Brazil, Israel, and Saudi Arabia practice apartheid.==<br />
Do you live in Brazil, Israel, or Saudi Arabia? Wikipedia has gone to painstaking detail to host articles about how your countries allegedly practice apartheid. If that's how you want your country described for the rest of the world, get out your checkbook.<br />
<br />
==5. Wikipedia pollutes the minds of children.==<br />
[[Image:Our_favorite_Wikipedia_image.jpg|thumb|175px|Jimmy Wales trying to extract another donation]] Perhaps you're philosophically opposed to censorship and think this is a daft point. Can you be sure that your shareholders and customers feel the same way? Wikipedia contains graphic material that might be morally contemptible in many countries -- even in the West. This includes images and articles depicting nipple piercings, anilingus, labia piercings, child <s>pornography</s> modeling (erotic), frenum rings, strappado bondage, erotic spanking, incest pornography, smotherboxes, and Courtney Cummz and her directorial debut 'Face Invaders'<ref>Cf [[Worst of Wikipedia]]</ref>. <br />
<br />
==6. Wikipedia has too much power.==<br />
Wikipedia smothers out more authoritative, but less-linked-to sites in Google and other search engine rankings. Wikipedia has garnered an ability to set the 'truth' in mainstream media and blogs that consult it every day, without digging deeper to verify facts from independent sources. Controversial Wikipedia pages suffer from "ownership" by content bullies who drive off independent editors, all supported by adminstrator cabals who follow one another around, supporting reverted edits and editor blocks and bans.<br />
<br><br><br />
<center><br />
<adsense><br />
google_ad_client = 'pub-4781341637005814';<br />
google_ad_width = 468;<br />
google_ad_height = 60;<br />
google_ad_format = '468x60_as';<br />
google_ad_type = 'text_image';//2006-12-28: MWB Directory space<br />
google_ad_channel = '2388332058';<br />
google_color_border = '6699CC';<br />
google_color_bg = '003366';<br />
google_color_link = 'FFFFFF';<br />
google_color_text = 'AECCEB';<br />
google_color_url = 'AECCEB';<br />
</adsense><br />
</center><br />
<br><br />
==7. Wikipedia is in a legally precarious position.==<br />
[[Section 230]] was designed to protect Internet service providers from libelous content generated by customers and re-distributed by the ISP. The Wikimedia Foundation has hidden behind this protection by claiming that it, too, is an "interactive computer service". We all know it's not, and one day, libel published on Wikipedia is going to lead to a courtroom test. Unaccountable administrators are given the "Oversight" capability to make problematic content literally "disappear", and the Foundation hopes that the warrant of these administrators is never traced back to their offices. For more on the history of noteworthy libel against innocent parties on Wikipedia, please look up the cases of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigenthaler_incident John Seigenthaler], of [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-caught-in-the-deadly-web-of-the-internet-445561.html Taner Akcam], and of [http://www.itwire.com/content/view/9913/53/ Fuzzy Zoeller].<br />
<br />
==8. The Wikimedia Foundation's leadership may be corrupt and inept.==<br />
Jimbo Wales (hiring a liar "Essjay", then telling the press he "didn't really have a problem with it", not to mention [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|other transgressions]]); Florence Devouard (now retired from the WMF, but noted for the infamous babysitting stipend she demanded); Angela Beesley (routinely edits the Wikipedia article about her company, Wikia, and adds external links to Wikia, all against Wikipedia community guidelines); Mike Godwin (edits Wikipedia anonymously, again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=260671486#Mike_Godwin_editing_Wikipedia_with_a_COI against community guidelines] that discourage self-promotion).<br />
<br />
==9. Wikipedia is unpredictable, inaccurate, and unmanageable.==<br />
Wikipedians have leaned on a so-called study by ''Nature'' magazine that supposedly proved Wikipedia's accuracy rivaled that of Encyclopedia Britannica. The study was [http://news.cnet.com/Belatedly,-Britannica-lambastes-Wikipedia-findings/2100-1025_3-6053754.html faulty to the core]. In other research, the 100 articles about the hundred United States Senators [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study|have been shown]] to render erroneous, if not libelous, information about 6.8% of the time. The Wikipedia leadership have been promising for over two years that a systematic fix for this kind of garbage (called "flagged revisions") is always just around the corner. It is time to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22057&hl= call the Wikipedia leadership on their obfuscation].<br />
<br />
==10. Wikimedia Foundation finances are suspect.==<br />
The Wikimedia Foundation has a history of unclear, tardy, and misleading financial statements. The early Form 990's filed by the Foundation stated that there was "no business relationship" between any of the Board members, even though 60% of the Board were employed by the for-profit enterprise Wikia, Inc.! Early on, the Wikimedia Foundation asked an attorney to design the organization as a membership body, but after his work was nearly complete, they [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756 scrapped the idea], realizing that a majority vote of members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees and demand line-by-line financial accountability. They didn't want '''that''' possibility to threaten them. Multiple top staff and former officers have privately expressed concern over [http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/10/business/fi-wikipedia10 financial wrongdoing] by certain board members. The former Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation (Carolyn Doran) was a wanted felon. The former executive director and head legal counsel resigned due to problems the organization had with him. The Foundation lacks a Board of Trustees with a wide base of civic and social stakeholders. They are all cronies and insiders who were incubated within Wikipedia. The Foundation is by design narrow and weak, reflecting only the interests of a dysfunctional social networking community.<br />
<br />
The current Executive Director and Deputy Director have a [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/41/FY_2008_09_Annual_Plan.PDF reported compensation budget] of $472,000, which is excessive for an organization of this size. Publicly-funded '''KUHT-TV''' in Houston has 71 employees, revenue of $11.5 million, and CEO John Hesse makes $158,628 in salary, benefits, and compensation. Wikipediots might protest, "But, but, but Houston has such a lower cost of living than San Francisco!" Okay, let's look at San Francisco. <br />
<br />
'''Earth Island Institute''' has revenue of about $6.5 million, 15 employees, (practically the same size as the Wikimedia Foundation, and headquarters in the very same San Francisco) but the CEO makes only $67,423. The Northern California chapter of the '''Arthritis Foundation''' has revenue of $5.1 million, but the CEO makes only $45,050. '''Child Family Health International''' in San Francisco has revenue of $4.0 million, it appears to have 11 employees, but the CEO makes only $82,000. All of this information comes from ''[http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Charity Navigator]''. The Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been reviewed by this watchdog group yet... but do you think the WMF would get the coveted "4-star rating"? HIGHLY doubtful. <br />
<br />
Ask yourself, how is Wikipedia inherently different now than it was in 2005? Honestly, there has been no major transformation there at the site. Just some server volume growth -- a terribly cheap commodity to manage. So, why have the gross receipts gone from $361,000 to over $6 million? <br />
<br />
'''Answer''': Compensation for people not really doing anything besides watch the servers, enjoy global jet-setting, and run damage control for Jimbo's dalliances. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Links on MyWikiBiz ==<br />
<br />
* [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View|The Wikipedia Point of View]]<br />
* [[The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia]]<br />
* [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales]]<br />
* [[Wikipedia scandals]] (see also [[Wikipedia Vandalism Study]])<br />
* [[Wikipedia Vandalism]]<br />
* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikimoney-a|Wikimoney-a]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
* [http://wikipedia-watch.org Wikipediawatch tells it like it is, follow all the cool links!]<br />
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/depress.html Wikipedia depression]<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filll/Disgusted Disgusted] - vote-rigging in Wikipedia elections.<br />
* ''[http://knol.google.com/k/david-blomstrom/wikipedia/1i6e04re3w2kp/5# Wikipedia: The Online Reference Anyone Can Edit]'' (David Blomstrom ).<br />
* ''[http://knol.google.com/k/carl-hewitt/corruption-of-wikipedia/pcxtp4rx7g1t/5# Corruption of Wikipedia (http://wikicensored.info)]'' (Carl Hewitt)<br />
* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/criticisms-of-wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia] by "Gomi" of Wikipedia Review.<br />
* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22070 Jimbo Wales Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope" of Project] by Moulton of Wikipedia Review<br />
* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080229/sam-vaknin-wikipedias-six-cardinal-sins Wikipedia’s Six Cardinal Sins] by Sam Vaknin<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
{{reflist}}</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=The_Six_Rotten_Pillars_of_Wikipedia&diff=72225The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia2008-10-30T13:52:59Z<p>Moulton: /* HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR */ Fix formatting of graphic.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830&view=findpost&p=138224 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref><br />
<br />
== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.<br />
<br />
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.<br />
<br />
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote><br />
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.<br />
<Blockquote><br />
<Center><br />
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.<br />
<br />
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote><br />
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote><br />
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).<br />
<br />
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY == <br />
<br />
Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.<br />
<br />
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.<br />
<br />
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.<br />
<br />
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.<br />
<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR == <br />
<br />
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.<br />
<br />
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote><br />
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.<br />
<br />
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.<br />
<br />
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.<br />
<br />
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.<br />
<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin&trade; T-shirt'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist}}</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=The_Six_Rotten_Pillars_of_Wikipedia&diff=72224The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia2008-10-30T13:50:39Z<p>Moulton: /* ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY */ Fix formatting of graphic.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830&view=findpost&p=138224 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref><br />
<br />
== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.<br />
<br />
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.<br />
<br />
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote><br />
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.<br />
<Blockquote><br />
<Center><br />
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.<br />
<br />
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote><br />
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote><br />
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).<br />
<br />
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY == <br />
<br />
Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.<br />
<br />
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.<br />
<br />
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.<br />
<br />
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.<br />
<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR == <br />
<br />
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.<br />
<br />
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote><br />
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.<br />
<br />
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.<br />
<br />
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.<br />
<br />
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg[/img]<br />
[size=4]Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm) T-shirt[/size]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist}}</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=The_Six_Rotten_Pillars_of_Wikipedia&diff=72223The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia2008-10-30T13:48:26Z<p>Moulton: /* “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES */ Fix formatting of graphic.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830&view=findpost&p=138224 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref><br />
<br />
== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.<br />
<br />
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.<br />
<br />
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote><br />
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.<br />
<Blockquote><br />
<Center><br />
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.<br />
<br />
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote><br />
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote><br />
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).<br />
<br />
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.<br />
<Blockquote><Center><br />
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY == <br />
<br />
Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.<br />
<br />
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.<br />
<br />
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.<br />
<br />
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png[/img]<br />
[size=4]“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”[/size]<br />
<br />
== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR == <br />
<br />
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.<br />
<br />
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote><br />
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.<br />
<br />
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.<br />
<br />
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.<br />
<br />
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg[/img]<br />
[size=4]Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm) T-shirt[/size]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist}}</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=The_Six_Rotten_Pillars_of_Wikipedia&diff=72222The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia2008-10-30T13:46:08Z<p>Moulton: /* INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES */ Fix formatting of graphic.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830&view=findpost&p=138224 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat. It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref><br />
<br />
== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.<br />
<br />
If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''. A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.<br />
<br />
What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote><br />
Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars The Five Pillars of Wikipedia], which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.<br />
<Blockquote><br />
<Center><br />
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5631/yul20brennerfd6.jpg<br />
<P><br />
<Big>'''“So let it be written! So let it be done!”'''</Big><br />
</Center></Blockquote><br />
<br />
== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES == <br />
<br />
According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means). While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.<br />
<br />
“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject. But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.</blockquote><br />
So far, so good. Then comes the kicker:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.''' The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. '''The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"'''. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. (My bolding).</blockquote><br />
So it would appear that ''the'' central policy of WP requires WP editors to ''construct'' a “neutral” viewpoint that somehow through some wiki-magic absorbs bits from the various contending viewpoints, giving no “undue weight” to any of the contending views, but still manages to be a viewpoint all its own. This way madness lies.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles. How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula? And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes? Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being? It is mind boggling. It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes. How could it be otherwise? NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).<br />
<br />
A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description. In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument. Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy. Is this some weird tenet of Randianism? Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg[/img]<br />
[size=4]“Words mean what ''I'' say they mean! Neither more nor less!”[/size]<br />
<br />
== ANONYMOUS EDITING– THE CULT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY == <br />
<br />
Anonymous commentary, particularly involving political criticism or satire, has a long and celebrated tradition in English-speaking nations. Contrast this with the encyclopedist tradition in 18th Century Britain and France, taking in contributions from well known and credited experts in their respective fields to produce the first western general knowledge encyclopedias in the modern era. In constructing its online “encyclopedia”, however, Wikipedia draws upon a far more recent tradition dating from the 1980s– Usenet message boards populated mostly by anonymous users.<br />
<br />
Anonymous editing is the most sacred cow on WP, other than “NPOV” and instant editing. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHarassment&diff=244251128&oldid=244244263 official policy], the “outing” of personal information about a WP user (defined as “legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, ''regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct''”) is absolutely verboten and a blockable offense. There is also no exception for posting such information when the user themself has publicly posted the information elsewhere. The hyperbolic justification given is that “outing” “is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in ‘the real world’.” The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_personal_attacks&diff=245919151&oldid=245339068 “harm”] that is being anticipated here are those “actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.” This, then, is the rationale of abandoning the centuries old practice of crediting contributors using their real names, and instead allowing the anonymous contribution practices of the Usenet.<br />
<br />
By the time WP came along in 2001, the flamewars of the Usenet had already passed into legend. Also by that time, the fact that anonymous posting on the internet has the power to turn some ordinarily well behaved and seemingly sensible people into raving sociopaths was well documented. It would seem, then, that whenever presented with a choice between little or no drama and lots of drama, WP can be reliably expected to choose the path of “moar dramahz”. That would fit, of course, with the MMORPG character of WP. But WP is more than just a MMORPG; it is also a libel platform containing thousands of “BLPs” (biographies of living persons). Anonymous editing, accordingly, is convenient for avoiding responsibility for publishing libels about celebrities, bosses, colleagues, competitors, or others that piss you off. But the advantages of anonymity don’t stop there. Polemicists can avoid disclosing their personal interests (wikispeak: “COI”) while advancing their agendas. Spammers and shills can hide the fact that they are spamming and shilling, as long as they aren’t being too obvious about it. Politicians and their staffs can enhance C.V.s and legislative records, and de-emphasize or eliminate scandals, without disclosing their “COI”. If you enjoy engaging in trolling, you don’t really want your real name associated that seventh grade level prose, even if you ''are'' still in the seventh grade. And as for the advantages for fetishists, that’s obvious.<br />
<br />
Thus, it is not hard to see the attraction of anonymity. Fulfilling one’s desire for revenge, personal and political interests, lusts, avarice, and desire to cause mayhem without consequence is pretty seductive. And even if one is caught “out”, you can simply start over again with a new account. This has happened on WP many, many times. Given the penchant that the more zealous WP users (a/k/a “wikipediots”) have for playing at martyrs, it is hard to know if this mad “outing” policy was really born of an overwrought persecution complex on the part of the policy authors, or whether it was a cynical ploy to increase participation (and drama) on WP. It could have even been some mixture of the two. In any event, it is clear that WP has effectively created a cult of irresponsibility; it has become an attractive nuisance to children and to adults who prefer to act irresponsibly.<br />
<br />
I am not unmindful that although the “outing” policy is absolute by its own terms, it is by no means absolute in its enforcement. A number of users deemed unmutual by The Cabal, or by one of the various sub-cabals (“wiki projects”), have been “outed” as punishment for their real or imagined “wiki-crimes”. That would be a good subject for another thread.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5377/vlcsnap878546ih2.png[/img]<br />
[size=4]“On second thought, let’s not go to Wikipedia. It is a silly place.”[/size]<br />
<br />
== HOSTILITY TO EXPERTS– THE CULT OF THE IGNORANT AMATEUR == <br />
<br />
Wikipedia’s hostility toward experts editing “the encyclopedia”, and its inability to retain expert users, are problems well documented here at Wikipedia Review. While hostility to experts does have a lot to do with the “anyone can edit” policy of WP, in my view it has even more to do with how “consensus” is reached to determine the content of articles.<br />
<br />
WP does not have any explicit policy to discourage expert participation, but it might as well have. In terms of determining content, WP focuses not so much on the actual merits of factual claims or contentions, but rather upon ''process'' and ''user behavior''. Central to this view is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConsensus&diff=245812716&oldid=245806625 WP’s official policy on consensus], which is founded directly upon The Jimbo’s peculiar definition of that word:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.</blockquote><br />
Note that the emphasis is on process, not the normal definition of “consensus”, which is a general agreement between a group as a whole. “Consensus” is deemed to be “Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making”, and is also a chief part of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars “Fourth Pillar”] of WP. The clear emphasis on process is also shown by [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg the flow chart] which appears on the policy page.<br />
<br />
The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy. There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.” Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content. This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined. This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from WP by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.<br />
<br />
So how does this affect experts? Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process. Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts. Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on WP, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight. This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve WP as a “tertiary source”. It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their WP experience. What WP appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another. Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings. Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm). It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.<br />
<br />
When it comes to process, it also should be noted that WP lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes. Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available]. The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (WP’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior. So what does this mean? On WP what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system. Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.<br />
<br />
[img]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg[/img]<br />
[size=4]Official Teenage Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm) T-shirt[/size]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
{{Reflist}}</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=72122Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-27T14:23:48Z<p>Moulton: /* Name ideas */ Desperately Seeking Sanity</p>
<hr />
<div>Consider that [http://www.wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to '''establish a new forum for research and discussion''' of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.<br />
<br />
Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.<br />
<br />
==Announcement==<br />
As the owner of this website, and as the primary agent for a new forum for research and discussion of information management on the Internet, I would like to announce that I am about 90% resolved to move forward in the following way:<br />
*The new forum will begin as a closed, "team edited" blog, open to ''comment'' by the general public. One new blog post will appear every Monday. Comments may be censored only by a majority vote of the management.<br />
*I will invite four other real-name people to form a set of '''Five Founders'''. Each of these men or women will have the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain, through a short partnership contract.<br />
*Each Founder will be responsible for drafting one blog post, on a rotating basis, such that '''Founder A''' will write the Week 1 post, '''Founder B''' will write the Week 2 post, and so on. The first draft of the post will be submitted on Thursdays, and the rest of the Founders may touch up and improve copy on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; but the Monday publication will carry the byline of the drafting author/Founder.<br />
*Each Founder will be allowed one "rain check" per year (to miss one every-five-weeks blog posting), but a second missed posting will result in the Founder losing contractual partnership.<br />
*Every three months, the Founders will discuss and vote on the addition of new members ('''New Partners''') who will be inserted into the rotating blog production cycle. After a quarterly probation period, they will also be given the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain.<br />
*In this way, the body of authors will grow, and the duty cycle of each member will decrease over time. If the duty cycle becomes too sporadic for the partners' taste, then we could vote to double the frequency of the blog, with new posts being published on Mondays ''and'' Thursdays.<br />
At this time, I would like interested Founder candidates to reach out to me by private e-mail (ResearchBiz <nowiki><at></nowiki> gmail.com). As stated above, real-names matching to authenticated bios will be required, at least to be shared within the private partnership contract, but not necessarily to the public at large. Recommendations for other Founders are welcome, as well. I urge ''private'' correspondence on this founding process, as I don't want this site to turn into a public discussion of real-name qualities and drawbacks. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:10, 12 October 2008 (PDT) ([[Directory:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory Kohs]])<br />
<br />
==Founding principles==<br />
<br />
# Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of unethical, unprofessional characteristics of certain types of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice and demeanor in order to describe documented situations involving these issues. Fueling of "drama" and interpersonal conflicts will be discouraged where possible. However, it may be necessary to discuss individual participants on particular websites in specific situations, such as to exemplify "conflict of interest" problems or to scrutinize the character of a website's leadership.<br />
# Both the ownership and administrative management of the new forum shall all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.<br />
# The target audience of the forum will be journalists who publish and broadcast in the areas of technology and information, academics whose research touches these subjects, and the general public. Some of those in the targeted audience will not have an intimate understanding of the inner workings and jargon of subject site policies (e.g., Wikipedia has an extremely complex rule set), so our forum will attempt to address such intricacies by spelling them out in layman's terms. <br />
# Topical discussions will not be limited to Wikipedia. Other Internet sites for examination may include Google Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikia, Biographicon, Veropedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:<br />
#* User-generated content<br />
#* Free licenses, the "Free culture movement", and copyright violations<br />
#* Wikis<br />
#* Section 230 considerations<br />
#* Anonymity and privacy on the Internet<br />
# Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.<br />
<br />
==Format==<br />
Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?<br />
<br />
===Message board===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Fluid discussions between members<br />
::More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Derailment of threads<br />
::Appears amateur<br />
::More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
<br />
===Wiki===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board<br />
::There is a clear division between content and discussion thereof.<br />
::The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page<br />
::Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::<s>I think this is the way I'm leaning, but I reserve the right to change my mind.</s> -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:59, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I do. A wiki can work perfectly well if participation is restricted and the management exercises diligence over its contents. -- Signed by [[User:Proabivouac]]00:58, October 11, 2008<br />
<br />
===Combination of Message Board/Wiki===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.<br />
::Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint. The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. '''If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?'''<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.<br />
::Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
<br />
::Absolutely this is the way to go, although, as stated elsewhere, I think that a wiki can only work properly with controlled articles, where individual articles are controlled by someone who is an expert on the topic. Closed membership of everything is essential too. Invite only or approved by existing members/moderators [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Blog, with "closed" team of editors===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Continuity and quality of message<br />
::"Outsiders" can participate through lively Comment fields<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Seems "closed" to collaboration<br />
::Limited set of creative thoughts and opinions<br />
::Linear display arranged by post date<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::Suddenly leaning a lot more toward this, at least as a fresh beginning. If a wiki is spawned later in the process, that's fine, too. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Given recent developments and some other factors, I'm inclined to go this way right now as well.[[User:Paul Wehage|Paul Wehage]] 16:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I think that a blog works too. Indeed, I think that all 3 of wiki, blog and forum can work in coordination happily. A blog can act like news. Maybe even a mailing list too to talk about important issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Mailing list===<br />
: '''Pros'''<br />
:: Wide reach for participation.<br />
:: If the list subscribes to a newsreader service like [http://www.gmane.org/ Gmane], then members can turn off their email delivery and use the newsreader instead. That way, readers download only the headers into their reader boxes, picking and choosing which posts they wish to read. Readers can use the web interface to interact, and the list owner can set whether responses are allowed from anyone or just members only. Utilities are provided for blocking spammers and hecklers.<br />
<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Moderating rules could be challenging<br />
::Is the content history fully searchable?<br />
::Very limited format possibilities<br />
::Fills up participants' inboxes<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::As stated above, "all of the above" works well. If a mailing list was used simply as a daily or even weekly summary of what has happened, it could work well. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Name ideas==<br />
<br />
What might we call this site?<br />
* Criticism of Crowdsourcing<br />
* Wrongs of the Internet<br />
* Rethinking Free Culture<br />
* Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked. Can we use this name?) or WikiAnalysis<br />
* WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)<br />
* Center for Internet Criticism<br />
* Internet Ethics Report<br />
* Internet Concerns<br />
* The Folly of Crowds<br />
* CyberCulture Review<br />
* Leaving Pseudopia<br />
* Desperately Seeking Sanity<br />
* blows against the e-pyre<br />
* crapsourcing.con<br />
* The Wales Street Journal<br />
<br />
One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.<br />
<br />
Conversely, even a forum with a lousy name like "Wikback.com" was quite successful for the brief time before its owner began to censor content in haphazard and unethical ways.<br />
<br />
'''Comments on suggested names:'''<br />
: It doesn't really matter what name you choose, as people will eventually get used to it. Criticism of Crowdsourcing, the name of this article, seems good enough to me. Otherwise, WikiReader is probably a good one. I had liked WikipediaCritics too, but that domain name is now taken. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I disagree on the importance and significance of nomenclature. Names should be as succinct, unambiguous, descriptive, distinctive, and memorable as possible so that people can reliably recognize the name and easily find the proper referent to it. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm warming up to "Internet Ethics Report" which I think sums it up pretty well. [[User:Paul Wehage|Paul Wehage]] 12:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I quite like Centre for Internet Criticism. [[User:Angela Kennedy|Angela Kennedy]] 23:52, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Reserved domain names==<br />
*WikipediaMustDie.com<br />
*GregoryKohs.com<br />
*MimboJimbo.com<br />
*MyWikiBiz.com<br />
<br />
'''Comments on domain names:'''<br />
<br />
:Ideally, I think that a domain name that is related to whatever is the chosen name would be ideal. The domain name can be shortened in some ways though. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:35, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72106User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T22:31:22Z<p>Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ More traffic...</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte <BR><br />
To: Moulton <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that. <br />
<br />
Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?<br />
<br />
:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.<br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Deloitte writes:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><br />
From: Andy Lehrer <BR><br />
To: Barry Kort <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:48 PM<BR><br />
Subject: Re: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: gmail.com<BR><br />
<P><br />
I don't really care what of my behaviour (real or alleged) Tim considers "corrupt", it's not his call, particularly when he has allied himself with administrators such as Jayjg and SlimVirgin who are almost universally considered "corrupt" by wikipedia critics and particularly when he himself has engaged in "sockpuppeting". In any case, in the real world the term corrupt implies some sort of financial misconduct, bribery etc. I understand that it's used as hyperbole but I don't appreciate having my real name linked to the word and I think it's quite clear how it would be libellous. Certainly if someone posted "Barry Kort is dishonest and corrupt" on a website and it creeped into your google rankings you would not be pleased - particularly if you were applying for jobs in an era where employers increasingly "google" prospective employees.<br />
<P><br />
When people get into these ridiculous online fights they have to remember that there is a real person at the other end who lives in the real world and has real concerns and that using hyperbolic language against them may have real life implications particularly when you "out" them by using their real name.<br />
<P><br />
I thought you were some sort of administrator or something and could actually "fix" the problem. If you're just interested in engaging in some sort of theoretical discussion then it makes more sense for me to just talk to Gregory or another admin directly.<br />
<P><br />
But please, have enough respect for my privacy not to post my email address (as you did initially) or my email without permission.<br />
<P><br />
And frankly, Tim is being incredibly hypocritical. It seems he objects to the fact that somebody (not me) referred to him as "Timothy Usher" at some point on wikipedia (this because his previous account was User:Timothy Usher - Proabivouac was his sockpuppeting account). For him to object to being outed and then proceed to out me by using my real name is completely hypocritical. <br />
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br />
::You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.<br />
<br />
::I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.<br />
<br />
::I am not an administrator who can fix anything. I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.<br />
<br />
::Please understand that if you contact me to ask me to investigate some aspect of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention. It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work. It is also my custom to publish my findings.<br />
<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::More traffic...<br />
<br />
:::On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Andy Lehrer wrote:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><br />
I can't edit the user page, I can edit the talk page though but I have no desire to engage in a public debate on my right to privacy given that doing so would only exacerbate the situation. If I'm concerned about my real name being used online and libellous statements being made how would it make any sense for me to engage in a public discussion on that? <br />
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br />
:::Given that you published accusations about Tim Usher (which may or may not be valid), you are now obliged to defend your claims in public. It is not uncommon for people from the Wikisphere to throw accusations around. In my role as a scientist, I ask people to support their assertions with evidence, reasoning, and analysis, in accord with the protocols of the scientific method.<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><br />
I appreciate that you made a public inquiry. Given that the whole issue here is personal privacy please appreciate the fact that I do not wish to engage in a public discussion. Respecting that means not posting private correspondence without permission. <br />
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br />
:::It's too late for you to avoid the role you adopted, as both a recipient of a public accusation and as a publisher of an accusation. Each side must now produce evidence, analysis, and reasoning to support their respective theses, and demonstrate how they have attempted to falsify each hypothesis on the table.<br />
<br />
:::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72105User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T22:18:27Z<p>Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ Response to Deloitte.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte <BR><br />
To: Moulton <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that. <br />
<br />
Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?<br />
<br />
:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.<br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Deloitte writes:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><br />
From: Andy Lehrer <BR><br />
To: Barry Kort <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:48 PM<BR><br />
Subject: Re: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: gmail.com<BR><br />
<P><br />
I don't really care what of my behaviour (real or alleged) Tim considers "corrupt", it's not his call, particularly when he has allied himself with administrators such as Jayjg and SlimVirgin who are almost universally considered "corrupt" by wikipedia critics and particularly when he himself has engaged in "sockpuppeting". In any case, in the real world the term corrupt implies some sort of financial misconduct, bribery etc. I understand that it's used as hyperbole but I don't appreciate having my real name linked to the word and I think it's quite clear how it would be libellous. Certainly if someone posted "Barry Kort is dishonest and corrupt" on a website and it creeped into your google rankings you would not be pleased - particularly if you were applying for jobs in an era where employers increasingly "google" prospective employees.<br />
<P><br />
When people get into these ridiculous online fights they have to remember that there is a real person at the other end who lives in the real world and has real concerns and that using hyperbolic language against them may have real life implications particularly when you "out" them by using their real name.<br />
<P><br />
I thought you were some sort of administrator or something and could actually "fix" the problem. If you're just interested in engaging in some sort of theoretical discussion then it makes more sense for me to just talk to Gregory or another admin directly.<br />
<P><br />
But please, have enough respect for my privacy not to post my email address (as you did initially) or my email without permission.<br />
<P><br />
And frankly, Tim is being incredibly hypocritical. It seems he objects to the fact that somebody (not me) referred to him as "Timothy Usher" at some point on wikipedia (this because his previous account was User:Timothy Usher - Proabivouac was his sockpuppeting account). For him to object to being outed and then proceed to out me by using my real name is completely hypocritical. <br />
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br />
::You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.<br />
<br />
::I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.<br />
<br />
::I am not an administrator who can fix anything. I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.<br />
<br />
::Please understand that if you contact me to ask me to investigate some aspect of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention. It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work. It is also my custom to publish my findings.<br />
<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72104User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T22:12:40Z<p>Moulton: Continuing open dialogue with Andy Lehrer, regarding his complaints about Tim Usher</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte <BR><br />
To: Moulton <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that. <br />
<br />
Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?<br />
<br />
:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.<br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Deloitte writes:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><br />
From: Andy Lehrer <BR><br />
To: Barry Kort <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:48 PM<BR><br />
Subject: Re: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: gmail.com<BR><br />
<P><br />
I don't really care what of my behaviour (real or alleged) Tim considers "corrupt", it's not his call, particularly when he has allied himself with administrators such as Jayjg and SlimVirgin who are almost universally considered "corrupt" by wikipedia critics and particularly when he himself has engaged in "sockpuppeting". In any case, in the real world the term corrupt implies some sort of financial misconduct, bribery etc. I understand that it's used as hyperbole but I don't appreciate having my real name linked to the word and I think it's quite clear how it would be libellous. Certainly if someone posted "Barry Kort is dishonest and corrupt" on a website and it creeped into your google rankings you would not be pleased - particularly if you were applying for jobs in an era where employers increasingly "google" prospective employees.<br />
<P><br />
When people get into these ridiculous online fights they have to remember that there is a real person at the other end who lives in the real world and has real concerns and that using hyperbolic language against them may have real life implications particularly when you "out" them by using their real name.<br />
<P><br />
I thought you were some sort of administrator or something and could actually "fix" the problem. If you're just interested in engaging in some sort of theoretical discussion then it makes more sense for me to just talk to Gregory or another admin directly.<br />
<P><br />
But please, have enough respect for my privacy not to post my email address (as you did initially) or my email without permission.<br />
<P><br />
And frankly, Tim is being incredibly hypocritical. It seems he objects to the fact that somebody (not me) referred to him as "Timothy Usher" at some point on wikipedia (this because his previous account was User:Timothy Usher - Proabivouac was his sockpuppeting account). For him to object to being outed and then proceed to out me by using my real name is completely hypocritical. <br />
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br />
You may not care, but I care, since you contacted me about the issue.<br />
<br />
I have already defined ''corrupt'' for you as some variant of unethical or unscrupulous practice, such as using one's administrative powers to disadvantage or disempower an editor with whom one has an editorial disagreement.<br />
<br />
I am not an administrator who can fix anything. I am a scientist and academic who researches and writes about cyberspace cultures and communities.<br />
<br />
Please understand that if you ask me to investigate some aspest of online culture, I am going to interpret that to mean you are asking for a scientific review of the cultural phenomenon that you are raising to my attention. It is my custom to acknowledge the role of other scholars who influence my work.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72101User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T21:39:32Z<p>Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ Response to Deloitte.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte <BR><br />
To: Moulton <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Calling someone "corrupt", "dishonest" etc is defamatory and libellous. Also, the use of real names in this context is harassment and may have real life implications which speak to damages. I'm sure if some posted "[Moulton's real name here] is a corrupt and dishonest wikipedia sockpuppeteer... etc" you would agree, particularly if a current or prospective employer were to google your name and find that. <br />
<br />
Besides, those sorts of attacks are at counterpurposes with the objective of MyWikiBiz which is to allow one to "author your legacy". [[User:Deloitte|Deloitte]] 14:08, 26 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Corrupt practices are unscrupulous or unethical practices. Have you asked Proabiviouac what aspects of your practices he considers unscrupulous, unethical, corrupt, or untruthful?<br />
<br />
:I don't know your history on Wikipedia, but my experience with the site is that corruption is rampant and accuracy is in short supply. Ethical editors who promote accuracy tend not to last very long at Wikipedia and related sister project sites.<br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:39, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72098User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T21:04:54Z<p>Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ Formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte <BR><br />
To: Moulton <BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72093User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T20:36:38Z<p>Moulton: /* Please explain ... */ E-Mail response from Deloitte</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Deloitte replies by E-Mail...<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
From: Deloitte &lt;arlcanada at gmail.com&gt;<BR><br />
To: Moulton &lt;Barry.Kort at gmail.com&gt;<BR><br />
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:58 PM<BR><br />
Subject: MyWikiBiz e-mail<BR><br />
Mailed-by: web11.bigbiz.com<BR><br />
<P> <br />
I redacted a defamatory and libelous personal attack since the talk pages are crawled by google. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+homeontherange+mywikibiz<br />
<P><br />
Probviouac was using MyWikiBiz' talk pages to perpetuate a personal vendetta he seems to have after he was banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review for "outing" people and engaging in personal harassment apparently on behalf of SlimVirgin. - see http://mywikibiz.com/Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1#.22Krimpet.22_coverup "The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)"<br />
<P><br />
This sort of thing might end up being a problem for MyWikiBiz since having personal attacks on talk pages is inconsistent with being about to "author your legacy" etc. You might want to consider removing talk pages from the google crawl in order to prevent this problem in the future.<br />
<P><br />
BTW, Probviouac has vandalized my user page, if I can use that term http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User:Deloitte&diff=prev&oldid=72068<br />
<P><br />
For some reason I can't edit http://mywikibiz.com/User:Deloitte - can you please remove his post?<br />
<P><br />
Thanks<br />
</Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
:Deloitte, please identify the specific remarks that you allege are false and defamatory.<br />
<br />
:Would each party provide evidence, reasoning, and analysis to support their respective versions or accounts of the disputed material. <br />
<br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 26 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Deloitte&diff=72043User talk:Deloitte2008-10-26T04:48:11Z<p>Moulton: Please explain ...</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Greeting}}<br />
<br />
== Please explain ... ==<br />
<br />
Hi Deloitte.<br />
<br />
Can you please explain your rationale for [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=72006&oldid=71825|this redaction]? <br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:48, 25 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Multiple_account_abuse_(Wikipedia)&diff=71798Multiple account abuse (Wikipedia)2008-10-16T21:30:33Z<p>Moulton: /* Evidence of abuse */ To avoid "dirty hands" always be sure to use freshly laundered socks.</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''sock puppet''' in Wikipedia is an alternative account ''used deceptively''. Wikipedia does not check the identity of a user when they open an account, and thus it is possible for the same user to edit the encyclopedia from two different accounts without the knowledge of other users. Wikipedia does not forbid multiple accounts as such, although it discourages the use of multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, and expressly forbids the use of to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise stir up controversy. "Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing". It also discourages voters from voting more than once via multiple accounts, (but qualifies this with the comment that "typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day").<br />
<br />
The result is a system that is difficult to manage, and there is considerable evidence of abuse of multiple accounts in Wikipedia elections, both by ordinary users and by Wikipedia 'administrators'.<br />
<br />
== Checkuser ==<br />
<br />
== Evidence of abuse ==<br />
<br />
[[Directory:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory Kohs]] has an ample trove of sockpuppet incursions into Wikipedia, but only a few instances found ''multiple'' socks trying to influence policy- or article-based outcomes. Generally, these socks were blocked within days of their use. Would these examples help the purpose of this article? (Erase this, if not.) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 04:53, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Possible confusion: I am using the term 'multiple account' as an ordinary language version of what Wiki-people call 'sockpuppet'. Thus, if you have ample evidence of sockpuppet incursions that have a negative effect on the project, please let me know.<br />
<br />
::Sorry, I can't think of any that had a negative effect on the project, at least in terms of proving or demonstrating important points. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:38, 16 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::What I learned ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17713&st=40&p=136286&#entry136286 from John Vandenberg]) is that the use of sockpuppet accounts to evade an unjust block enables others to stigmatize the sockpuppeter has having "dirty hands". The moral of the story, I suppose, is to always use freshly laundered socks. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:30, 16 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet Multiple account policy on Wikipedia]</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71795Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-16T14:51:28Z<p>Moulton: /* Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away */ Sleepwalkers outnumber Buddhas.</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: If all you mean by "drama" is something like "the affective element in education and inquiry", then that has been a factor in my studies for as long as I can remember, but I think it would be a whole lot clearer just to say the latter. I have participated in the mystiques of enough psychodrama and street theater to know the agonies, the thrills, and the uses thereof, but I do not call that Drama in a literal literary sense.<br />
<br />
JA: It is possible to learn from almost any experience that we undergo &mdash; adverse, artful, or otherwise &mdash; but we have to be capable of reflecting on the experience to the point where we can extract the lesson, and that is a step beyond mere mystified participation in absurdity. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:18, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: What I've been thinking about is the artful construction of a custom-crafted drama optimally designed to [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Caprice midwife an epiphany] of a particular individual at a particular juncture in their lifelong learning journey. I am thinking of stories like Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the story of the ''Princess Bride'' to his grandson, or ''Arabian Nights'' or ''Aesop's Fables'' or the Parables of Jesus or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U_d7-V8s4 this ditty by Bing Crosby]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 12:56, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I'm not sure I understand all this "Hallo, Jude!" stuff you keep going on about, but it begins to dawn on me that it's you, you, my friend, who are in the grip of some Will To Drama that you'd fain e-body in, oh, let's say, Barry's Intense Drama Engine (BIDE), and that you project this project of yours on your favorite local authoritarian, Jimbo Wales, who knows it not. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:08, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the ''function'' of blocking and banning within the cult(ure) in question. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement#In_literature Immurement], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword Safeword]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away===<br />
<br />
JA: The phenomenon that I wish to address under this head is one that I noticed many years ago, one that I observed arising especially acutely in the W(P+R) context, and one that I tried to tackle under numerous heads at ''The Wikipedia Review'', but like every other topic that risks diversion from the WR Soap Opera In Regress Everlasting (WR:SOIRE), all of those inquiries fell like lead balloons on leaden ears.<br />
<br />
JA: ''Vide'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17951 Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away].<br />
<br />
JA: Maybe it was something I said? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 14:40, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In my experience, the inquiry process fails when the would-be inquirer departs from rigorous skeptical inquiry by failing to examine all the evidence with a critical eye and by failing to reason in a coherent and scientific manner to valid conclusions and insights. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:44, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>You know the nearer your destination</p><br />
<p>The more you're slip slidin' away</p><br />
<br />
<p>&mdash; Paul Simon<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
JA: The particular phenomenon that I'm talking about here occurs when all the right evidence and all the right reasoning lead a person right up to the door of what, by rights, would be the inescapable conclusion, and yet &hellip; and yet &hellip; the fear of losing a cherished illusion keeps that person from walking through that door. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:16, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Do you mean the inescapable conclusion that there is no hope for ''Homo Schleppians'' or Western Civilization because we lack the critical mass to evolve from a political culture to a scientific one? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:59, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: No<font size=7>,</font> I mean that there's very little hope for ''Some People'' until they ¡¡¡&nbsp;Wake&nbsp;Da&nbsp;&Phi;&upsilon;&kappa;&nbsp;&uarr;&nbsp;!!! [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 03:54, 16 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Oh. Well [http://www.google.com/search?q=Gurdjieff+Ouspensky Gurdjieff and Ouspensky] pretty much established that most people are sleepwalking their way through life. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:51, 16 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71786Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-16T02:59:25Z<p>Moulton: /* Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away */ Panic is not an intelligent management strategy.</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: If all you mean by "drama" is something like "the affective element in education and inquiry", then that has been a factor in my studies for as long as I can remember, but I think it would be a whole lot clearer just to say the latter. I have participated in the mystiques of enough psychodrama and street theater to know the agonies, the thrills, and the uses thereof, but I do not call that Drama in a literal literary sense.<br />
<br />
JA: It is possible to learn from almost any experience that we undergo &mdash; adverse, artful, or otherwise &mdash; but we have to be capable of reflecting on the experience to the point where we can extract the lesson, and that is a step beyond mere mystified participation in absurdity. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:18, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: What I've been thinking about is the artful construction of a custom-crafted drama optimally designed to [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Caprice midwife an epiphany] of a particular individual at a particular juncture in their lifelong learning journey. I am thinking of stories like Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the story of the ''Princess Bride'' to his grandson, or ''Arabian Nights'' or ''Aesop's Fables'' or the Parables of Jesus or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U_d7-V8s4 this ditty by Bing Crosby]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 12:56, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I'm not sure I understand all this "Hallo, Jude!" stuff you keep going on about, but it begins to dawn on me that it's you, you, my friend, who are in the grip of some Will To Drama that you'd fain e-body in, oh, let's say, Barry's Intense Drama Engine (BIDE), and that you project this project of yours on your favorite local authoritarian, Jimbo Wales, who knows it not. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:08, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the ''function'' of blocking and banning within the cult(ure) in question. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement#In_literature Immurement], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword Safeword]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away===<br />
<br />
JA: The phenomenon that I wish to address under this head is one that I noticed many years ago, one that I observed arising especially acutely in the W(P+R) context, and one that I tried to tackle under numerous heads at ''The Wikipedia Review'', but like every other topic that risks diversion from the WR Soap Opera In Regress Everlasting (WR:SOIRE), all of those inquiries fell like lead balloons on leaden ears.<br />
<br />
JA: ''Vide'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17951 Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away].<br />
<br />
JA: Maybe it was something I said? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 14:40, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In my experience, the inquiry process fails when the would-be inquirer departs from rigorous skeptical inquiry by failing to examine all the evidence with a critical eye and by failing to reason in a coherent and scientific manner to valid conclusions and insights. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:44, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>You know the nearer your destination</p><br />
<p>The more you're slip slidin' away</p><br />
<br />
<p>&mdash; Paul Simon<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
JA: The particular phenomenon that I'm talking about here occurs when all the right evidence and all the right reasoning lead a person right up to the door of what, by rights, would be the inescapable conclusion, and yet &hellip; and yet &hellip; the fear of losing a cherished illusion keeps that person from walking through that door. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:16, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Do you mean the inescapable conclusion that there is no hope for ''Homo Schleppians'' or Western Civilization because we lack the critical mass to evolve from a political culture to a scientific one? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:59, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71782Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-15T22:44:47Z<p>Moulton: /* Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away */ Rigorous Skeptical Inquiry</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: If all you mean by "drama" is something like "the affective element in education and inquiry", then that has been a factor in my studies for as long as I can remember, but I think it would be a whole lot clearer just to say the latter. I have participated in the mystiques of enough psychodrama and street theater to know the agonies, the thrills, and the uses thereof, but I do not call that Drama in a literal literary sense.<br />
<br />
JA: It is possible to learn from almost any experience that we undergo &mdash; adverse, artful, or otherwise &mdash; but we have to be capable of reflecting on the experience to the point where we can extract the lesson, and that is a step beyond mere mystified participation in absurdity. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:18, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: What I've been thinking about is the artful construction of a custom-crafted drama optimally designed to [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Caprice midwife an epiphany] of a particular individual at a particular juncture in their lifelong learning journey. I am thinking of stories like Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the story of the ''Princess Bride'' to his grandson, or ''Arabian Nights'' or ''Aesop's Fables'' or the Parables of Jesus or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U_d7-V8s4 this ditty by Bing Crosby]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 12:56, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I'm not sure I understand all this "Hallo, Jude!" stuff you keep going on about, but it begins to dawn on me that it's you, you, my friend, who are in the grip of some Will To Drama that you'd fain e-body in, oh, let's say, Barry's Intense Drama Engine (BIDE), and that you project this project of yours on your favorite local authoritarian, Jimbo Wales, who knows it not. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:08, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the ''function'' of blocking and banning within the cult(ure) in question. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement#In_literature Immurement], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword Safeword]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away===<br />
<br />
JA: The phenomenon that I wish to address under this head is one that I noticed many years ago, one that I observed arising especially acutely in the W(P+R) context, and one that I tried to tackle under numerous heads at ''The Wikipedia Review'', but like every other topic that risks diversion from the WR Soap Opera In Regress Everlasting (WR:SOIRE), all of those inquiries fell like lead balloons on leaden ears.<br />
<br />
JA: ''Vide'' [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17951 Dysfunctional Inquiry Programs (DIP's) : Slip Slidin' Away].<br />
<br />
JA: Maybe it was something I said? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 14:40, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In my experience, the inquiry process fails when the would-be inquirer departs from rigorous skeptical inquiry by failing to examine all the evidence with a critical eye and by failing to reason in a coherent and scientific manner to valid conclusions and insights. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:44, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Proabivouac&diff=71746User talk:Proabivouac2008-10-15T12:36:05Z<p>Moulton: /* Please fix */ Colore me vexed and perplexed (not to mentioned annoyed by the fog that is obscuring the picture of the puzzle to be solved).</p>
<hr />
<div>== Hi ==<br />
<br />
Hi PB. Good to see you around. [[User:Ockham|Peter Damian]] 00:26, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Please fix ==<br />
<br />
Your "error" in your Google docs dated 6th September 2008:<br />
<br />
[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq British civil servant impersonated others online]<br />
<br />
As exposed in my Google docs dated 25th September 2008 (although originally exposed on 8th September 2008 on Encyc):<br />
<br />
[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt Correction to British civil servant impersonated others online]<br />
<br />
Please change this paragraph:<br />
<br />
''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter gives the name Giselle Hillman, purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and one site which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''<br />
<br />
To read this:<br />
<br />
''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter was once said to have the real name of Giselle Hillman [12], purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and Names Database, a social networking site, which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] [15]''<br />
<br />
As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith". This is not the same as "Written by Adrian Meredith", which you are saying in your document. The inference that you make, based on that, that I created the Giselle Hillman identity on Poetlister's request, is therefore false, and should be retracted. It is a hurtful, nasty, slanderous thing to say which has caused significant damage to me as a person in my real life. It has also led to a number of seriously hurtful things that were said by other people in relation to that, primarily by Alison and SlimVirgin but also by others, on Wikipedia Review, Encyc, Wikipedia and other places, which have also caused significant real life damage.<br />
<br />
Whilst I find it completely unbelievable that you could either be unaware that you had made this "mistake" and furthermore that you are unaware that you have been proven false for over a month, I nonetheless am here, for the first time person to person writing you a comment to ask you to please remove this comment. (Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)<br />
<br />
As you will see, it does not in any way detract from your investigation. The only difference is that it removes a false aspect that pins the whole thing on me. In other words, if you make the change as suggested, it actually makes you look better, because it makes you look like less of a liar, and it makes it look like your reason for the investigation was to try to prove guilt, rather than just to try to smear my name, which is what it looks like right now.<br />
<br />
If you will make the change, coupled with a public apology and some kind of an explanation as to why you were misled to believe that I was in fact responsible for creating the Giselle Hillman identity for Poetlister, then I will also similarly say nicer things about you. <br />
<br />
If you don't agree to make the change, I will of course continue to advertise why your article is false, I will indeed call you a liar, and your whole effort, which, other than that element, was probably a pretty good thing, will ultimately end up looking bad on you. <br />
<br />
This has gone on long enough, and it is high time that you made things right. <br />
<br />
Thank you. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:39, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:I am not aware that you ever "proved anything was wrong"…this is the first time you've ever attempted to speak with me about this.<br />
:Put simply, you wish me to delete this sentence:<br />
:“The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''<br />
:“As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith".”<br />
:Yes, I see that. It’s possible that I’d misinterpreted that information, having never used that site. So, explain to me what actually happened, and we’ll correct the record.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:04, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissyu2, you write, "Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)"<br />
:Who are these "dozens of people" who told you this? I certainly never heard from them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, play dumb then. Indeed, play really stupid.<br />
<br />
::Names Database is a social networking site. Classmates.com is a subsidiary of it. I have never actually used Names Database, I only ever signed up to Classmates.com. Try it yourself. When you sign up, it automatically sends an e-mail invitation to everyone on your mailing list from the e-mail address you register with. Guess what? I had been talking to Poetlister, so Poetlister got that e-mail. So, Poetlister is one of about 50 people who are listed as "Referred By Adrian Meredith". Get it? Right. It doesn't mean "Written By". I suppose that it is hypothetically possible for me to have written it, but again, they check IP and e-mail address to verify who you are. They don't check anything else, though. All that you know is that every single entry in that database is using a different IP address and a different e-mail address. There is no guarantee that the "Adrian Meredith" in there is really me, nor is there any guarantee that the "Giselle Hillman" account really belongs to them. It is not reliable. Indeed, nobody who understood what the site was would think that it was reliable. The aim of the site is to try to find ex school friends. I found about a dozen people I used to go to high school with who I had lost contact with. It is a good site. Thanks to your lying article, I was forced to take my name off that. I wasn't too impressed about that. I would love to be able to re-add my name there, but until you fix your lying article, I can't do that.<br />
<br />
::You were comprehensively proven to have lied your fucking heart out there. You are still sitting here smiling and refusing to change it. There you go. You can lie and pretend that all of the dozens of people who contacted you oh no secretly didn't. You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison said about me on Encyc, all of the shit that SlimVirgin said about me on Wikipedia, all of the thousands of things that people said about me BECAUSE OF YOUR LIES! You can lie your heart about that.<br />
<br />
::If you honestly think that what you are saying is true, prove it. Put your real name to it, and contact details, so that I can sue you, and we will get a court to decide whether what you are saying is true or not. What you are doing right now is illegal. Daniel Brandt talks about it all of the time. Lying about someone while hiding behind a screen name is illegal by US law. <br />
<br />
::You have no reason whatsoever to lie about me in that document. It doesn't help your case - it hurts your case immensely. It makes it look like you are just making shit up as you go along. You know that it is wrong, so fix it. Read up about Captain AmErika if you really are so stupid as to think that you have a right to do this shit. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Adrian, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your curious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Proabiv's beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, or pretensions of knowledge? In particular, please support your as-yet undemonstrated hypothesis that Proabiv was knowingly and intentionally being deceptive rather than merely confused by an incomplete and inchoate account. Have you rigorously employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypothesis regarding Proabiv's alleged state of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:22, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Whoa, hold on. Just tell me what actually happened with the NamesBase site. That's all I'm asking.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:17, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: ''"You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison [..] "'' - Blissyu2, are you still badmouthing me around the place? Knock it off already - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 20:44, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Shut up Alison, you started your shit because of this lie by Proabivouc, who you insisted you had told about my error. Now you are saying that *I* am making up shit about you? Give me strength! The only reason you stopped was because you were scared of the CIA. Proabivouac has now proven that he is guilty of deliberately lying to cause a smear campaign. You, Alison, are an accessory to the crime. Please can both of you give me your contact details, and if you are so fucking sure of yourselves, then bring it to a court of law. Hiding behind an online alias while lying about a real person is a crime. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:06, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Adrian, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your curious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Alison's fears, motivations or pretensions of knowledge? Have you rigorously employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypotheses regarding Alison's alleged states of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:36, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissyu2, again, please just explain what happened at the NamesBase site, so I can correct the record accordingly.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:09, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Go to http://www.classmates.com/ and sign up. It says to you "Send invites to all of your friends". It even does it automatically out of your address book. Simple. It sends it to all of the people in your address book. I was talking to Poetlister at the time because I was investigating her case, which you well know, hence she got invited. I had no idea that Poetlister had created a profile until you said so a while ago. That was also when I discovered that Names Database now controls Classmates.com. There are about 30 people whose accounts say "Referred By Adrian Meredith". I did not create any of them. If you read their rules, you would have seen that it is impossible to create 2 profiles, because they require you to use a unique IP address and a unique e-mail address. It is however possible to create a fake profile, just so long as you don't have another one. Why do you presume that I would go to so much effort to create a fake profile? If I went to so much effort as that (which would be a huge amount of effort), why would I then show my hand by having it Referred By me? And furthermore, if going to so much effort, why not advertise it? I mean, before you found that spot, nobody had even seen that ever before. It doesn't show up on Google under any search, and if you look through Names Database you get a Canadian Giselle Hillman, who wasn't referred by anyone. <br />
<br />
:::Sorry, but I am not buying it that you can't figure out something that freaking obvious. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:12, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::For what it's worth, I'm having trouble just understanding the ''puzzle'' to be solved. It's possible the solution to the puzzle (once clearly stated) is obvious, but the puzzle itself is not sufficiently well stated at this juncture to be clear to me. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:36, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Okay, so you invited "Poetlister" to join. Are you saying that this happened automatically when you hit a button saying "send invites to all of your friends"? Are you saying that you had no idea that "Poetlister" would then create a profile after you'd invited "her" to do join?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:56, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Are you still banned from WR? ==<br />
<br />
What was that all about? [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 18:28, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Proabivouac&diff=71745User talk:Proabivouac2008-10-15T12:22:24Z<p>Moulton: /* Please fix */ I feel as if I am being misinformed or ill-informed regarding Proabiv's alleged state of mind and intentions in constructing an accurate, insightful, and coherent account.</p>
<hr />
<div>== Hi ==<br />
<br />
Hi PB. Good to see you around. [[User:Ockham|Peter Damian]] 00:26, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Please fix ==<br />
<br />
Your "error" in your Google docs dated 6th September 2008:<br />
<br />
[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq British civil servant impersonated others online]<br />
<br />
As exposed in my Google docs dated 25th September 2008 (although originally exposed on 8th September 2008 on Encyc):<br />
<br />
[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt Correction to British civil servant impersonated others online]<br />
<br />
Please change this paragraph:<br />
<br />
''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter gives the name Giselle Hillman, purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and one site which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''<br />
<br />
To read this:<br />
<br />
''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter was once said to have the real name of Giselle Hillman [12], purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and Names Database, a social networking site, which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] [15]''<br />
<br />
As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith". This is not the same as "Written by Adrian Meredith", which you are saying in your document. The inference that you make, based on that, that I created the Giselle Hillman identity on Poetlister's request, is therefore false, and should be retracted. It is a hurtful, nasty, slanderous thing to say which has caused significant damage to me as a person in my real life. It has also led to a number of seriously hurtful things that were said by other people in relation to that, primarily by Alison and SlimVirgin but also by others, on Wikipedia Review, Encyc, Wikipedia and other places, which have also caused significant real life damage.<br />
<br />
Whilst I find it completely unbelievable that you could either be unaware that you had made this "mistake" and furthermore that you are unaware that you have been proven false for over a month, I nonetheless am here, for the first time person to person writing you a comment to ask you to please remove this comment. (Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)<br />
<br />
As you will see, it does not in any way detract from your investigation. The only difference is that it removes a false aspect that pins the whole thing on me. In other words, if you make the change as suggested, it actually makes you look better, because it makes you look like less of a liar, and it makes it look like your reason for the investigation was to try to prove guilt, rather than just to try to smear my name, which is what it looks like right now.<br />
<br />
If you will make the change, coupled with a public apology and some kind of an explanation as to why you were misled to believe that I was in fact responsible for creating the Giselle Hillman identity for Poetlister, then I will also similarly say nicer things about you. <br />
<br />
If you don't agree to make the change, I will of course continue to advertise why your article is false, I will indeed call you a liar, and your whole effort, which, other than that element, was probably a pretty good thing, will ultimately end up looking bad on you. <br />
<br />
This has gone on long enough, and it is high time that you made things right. <br />
<br />
Thank you. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:39, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:I am not aware that you ever "proved anything was wrong"…this is the first time you've ever attempted to speak with me about this.<br />
:Put simply, you wish me to delete this sentence:<br />
:“The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''<br />
:“As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith".”<br />
:Yes, I see that. It’s possible that I’d misinterpreted that information, having never used that site. So, explain to me what actually happened, and we’ll correct the record.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:04, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissyu2, you write, "Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)"<br />
:Who are these "dozens of people" who told you this? I certainly never heard from them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, play dumb then. Indeed, play really stupid.<br />
<br />
::Names Database is a social networking site. Classmates.com is a subsidiary of it. I have never actually used Names Database, I only ever signed up to Classmates.com. Try it yourself. When you sign up, it automatically sends an e-mail invitation to everyone on your mailing list from the e-mail address you register with. Guess what? I had been talking to Poetlister, so Poetlister got that e-mail. So, Poetlister is one of about 50 people who are listed as "Referred By Adrian Meredith". Get it? Right. It doesn't mean "Written By". I suppose that it is hypothetically possible for me to have written it, but again, they check IP and e-mail address to verify who you are. They don't check anything else, though. All that you know is that every single entry in that database is using a different IP address and a different e-mail address. There is no guarantee that the "Adrian Meredith" in there is really me, nor is there any guarantee that the "Giselle Hillman" account really belongs to them. It is not reliable. Indeed, nobody who understood what the site was would think that it was reliable. The aim of the site is to try to find ex school friends. I found about a dozen people I used to go to high school with who I had lost contact with. It is a good site. Thanks to your lying article, I was forced to take my name off that. I wasn't too impressed about that. I would love to be able to re-add my name there, but until you fix your lying article, I can't do that.<br />
<br />
::You were comprehensively proven to have lied your fucking heart out there. You are still sitting here smiling and refusing to change it. There you go. You can lie and pretend that all of the dozens of people who contacted you oh no secretly didn't. You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison said about me on Encyc, all of the shit that SlimVirgin said about me on Wikipedia, all of the thousands of things that people said about me BECAUSE OF YOUR LIES! You can lie your heart about that.<br />
<br />
::If you honestly think that what you are saying is true, prove it. Put your real name to it, and contact details, so that I can sue you, and we will get a court to decide whether what you are saying is true or not. What you are doing right now is illegal. Daniel Brandt talks about it all of the time. Lying about someone while hiding behind a screen name is illegal by US law. <br />
<br />
::You have no reason whatsoever to lie about me in that document. It doesn't help your case - it hurts your case immensely. It makes it look like you are just making shit up as you go along. You know that it is wrong, so fix it. Read up about Captain AmErika if you really are so stupid as to think that you have a right to do this shit. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Adrian, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your curious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Proabiv's beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, or pretensions of knowledge? In particular, please support your as-yet undemonstrated hypothesis that Proabiv was knowingly and intentionally being deceptive rather than merely confused by an incomplete and inchoate account. Have you rigorously employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypothesis regarding Proabiv's alleged state of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:22, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Whoa, hold on. Just tell me what actually happened with the NamesBase site. That's all I'm asking.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:17, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: ''"You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison [..] "'' - Blissyu2, are you still badmouthing me around the place? Knock it off already - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 20:44, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Shut up Alison, you started your shit because of this lie by Proabivouc, who you insisted you had told about my error. Now you are saying that *I* am making up shit about you? Give me strength! The only reason you stopped was because you were scared of the CIA. Proabivouac has now proven that he is guilty of deliberately lying to cause a smear campaign. You, Alison, are an accessory to the crime. Please can both of you give me your contact details, and if you are so fucking sure of yourselves, then bring it to a court of law. Hiding behind an online alias while lying about a real person is a crime. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:06, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Blissyu2, again, please just explain what happened at the NamesBase site, so I can correct the record accordingly.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:09, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Go to http://www.classmates.com/ and sign up. It says to you "Send invites to all of your friends". It even does it automatically out of your address book. Simple. It sends it to all of the people in your address book. I was talking to Poetlister at the time because I was investigating her case, which you well know, hence she got invited. I had no idea that Poetlister had created a profile until you said so a while ago. That was also when I discovered that Names Database now controls Classmates.com. There are about 30 people whose accounts say "Referred By Adrian Meredith". I did not create any of them. If you read their rules, you would have seen that it is impossible to create 2 profiles, because they require you to use a unique IP address and a unique e-mail address. It is however possible to create a fake profile, just so long as you don't have another one. Why do you presume that I would go to so much effort to create a fake profile? If I went to so much effort as that (which would be a huge amount of effort), why would I then show my hand by having it Referred By me? And furthermore, if going to so much effort, why not advertise it? I mean, before you found that spot, nobody had even seen that ever before. It doesn't show up on Google under any search, and if you look through Names Database you get a Canadian Giselle Hillman, who wasn't referred by anyone. <br />
<br />
::::Sorry, but I am not buying it that you can't figure out something that freaking obvious. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:12, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::Okay, so you invited "Poetlister" to join. Are you saying that this happened automatically when you hit a button saying "send invites to all of your friends"? Are you saying that you had no idea that "Poetlister" would then create a profile after you'd invited "her" to do join?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:56, 15 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Are you still banned from WR? ==<br />
<br />
What was that all about? [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 18:28, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71723Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-14T20:36:40Z<p>Moulton: /* Points for Expansion */ See also: Bomis Boyz™B&D Fetish Scene and Edgar Allan Poetry.</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: If all you mean by "drama" is something like "the affective element in education and inquiry", then that has been a factor in my studies for as long as I can remember, but I think it would be a whole lot clearer just to say the latter. I have participated in the mystiques of enough psychodrama and street theater to know the agonies, the thrills, and the uses thereof, but I do not call that Drama in a literal literary sense.<br />
<br />
JA: It is possible to learn from almost any experience that we undergo &mdash; adverse, artful, or otherwise &mdash; but we have to be capable of reflecting on the experience to the point where we can extract the lesson, and that is a step beyond mere mystified participation in absurdity. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:18, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: What I've been thinking about is the artful construction of a custom-crafted drama optimally designed to [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Caprice midwife an epiphany] of a particular individual at a particular juncture in their lifelong learning journey. I am thinking of stories like Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the story of the ''Princess Bride'' to his grandson, or ''Arabian Nights'' or ''Aesop's Fables'' or the Parables of Jesus or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U_d7-V8s4 this ditty by Bing Crosby]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 12:56, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the '''''function''''' of blocking and banning. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immurement#In_literature Immurement], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword Safeword]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71720Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-14T19:56:39Z<p>Moulton: /* The 1st Part of the Discontention */ Would you like to swing on a star?</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: If all you mean by "drama" is something like "the affective element in education and inquiry", then that has been a factor in my studies for as long as I can remember, but I think it would be a whole lot clearer just to say the latter. I have participated in the mystiques of enough psychodrama and street theater to know the agonies, the thrills, and the uses thereof, but I do not call that Drama in a literal literary sense.<br />
<br />
JA: It is possible to learn from almost any experience that we undergo &mdash; adverse, artful, or otherwise &mdash; but we have to be capable of reflecting on the experience to the point where we can extract the lesson, and that is a step beyond mere mystified participation in absurdity. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:18, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: What I've been thinking about is the artful construction of a custom-crafted drama optimally designed to [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Caprice midwife an epiphany] of a particular individual at a particular juncture in their lifelong learning journey. I am thinking of stories like Peter Falk as the grandfather reading the story of the ''Princess Bride'' to his grandson, or ''Arabian Nights'' or ''Aesop's Fables'' or the Parables of Jesus or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U_d7-V8s4 this ditty by Bing Crosby]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 12:56, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the '''''function''''' of blocking and banning. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71697Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-14T17:35:20Z<p>Moulton: /* The 1st Part of the Discontention */ Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?</p>
<hr />
<div><p>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.</p><br />
<br><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
===The 1st Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".<br />
<br />
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I don't think we are all that far apart, Jon. I've been thinking about the use of dramaturgy in education for many years now, and I've been following the snail's pace at which the game culture has incorporated dramaturgy into the design of games. What I noticed about WMF sites is that, while Jimbo did not intentionally set out to craft a post-modern theater of the absurd, that's what WP and sister sites have evolved to become. A secondary question is what (if anything) the participants in Jimbo's Masquerade Ball are learning through their participation in that happenstantial psychodrama stage. [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:35, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===The 2nd Part of the Discontention===<br />
<br />
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
====Points of Consensus====<br />
<br />
* Although we continue to have difficulty identifying it, or even thinking of an apt name for it, many of us seem to agree that there is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture (STA). Unless we can diagnose this bug with more exactness, attempts to "fix Wikipedia", whether in-place or in a new place, are most likely going to continue being futile. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:36, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* We seem to agree that the social sanctions known as "blocking" and "banning", as implemented in the corresponding social powers and technical utilities, or something about the distribution of those powers and utilities, are telling indicators of the fundamental social wrong in Wikipedia. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:52, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points of Dissensus====<br />
<br />
* Hard to pin down, but something about the character of drama and the role of drama, however cast, in the Wikipedia System. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:20, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
====Points for Expansion====<br />
<br />
JA: I am out of time for pursuing this right now, but one of the points that we need to probe a little further has to do with the '''''function''''' of blocking and banning. Words like ''alienation'', ''excommunication'', ''exile'', ''scapegoating'', and ''shunning'' have been used in the past. What is really going on is not any form of physical transportation, but a filtering out of messages from identifiable sources, a form of "killing the message", if not exactly the messenger. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: There really are such things as noise, spam, and vandalism, and so there are legitimate reasons for filtering and ignoring certain classes of messages. When the functions of filtering and repression become dysfunctional for any error-controlled system, however, is when valid feedback about the system and its environment is habitually being ignored. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:50, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Made Glorious By This Sum Resummed A Fork==<br />
<br />
JA: All in the fullness of time &hellip; [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:14, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I have done that already [http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71645Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-14T04:59:14Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ The term "drama engine" has been around for a while.</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br><br />
----<br />
<br><br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about [http://www.google.com/search?q=first+generation+drama+engine first generation drama engines], lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. '''J'''imbo's '''U'''nintended '''D'''rama '''E'''ngine ('''JUDE''') operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<p>Dear Abbie,</p><br />
<br />
<p>I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve ''The Review'' &mdash; and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and<br />
I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.</p><br />
<br />
<p>Just call me,</p><br />
<br />
<p>All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451</p><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiderat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..<br />
<br />
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment. <br />
<br />
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.<br />
<br />
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71624Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-13T21:14:16Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Wm. Shakespeare, the Bard, =/= A Midsummer Night's Scream</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br><br />
----<br />
<br><br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic ''production'' with a drama ''engine''. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling ''drama engine'' &mdash; a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model ''personas''] and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/banshee.html theater of the absurd]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiredat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71567Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-13T18:04:07Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Hey JUDE</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br><br />
----<br />
<br><br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wikipejortaive term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.<br />
<br />
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.<br />
<br />
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits may roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that ''that'' is what you are crediting to Jimbo & Company? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and [http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Mu Barsoom Tork Associates], I've published a song about it: [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Jimbo.27s_Unintended_Drama_Engine Hey JUDE] —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiredat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71554Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-13T17:20:07Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ More on Jimbo's unintentional drama engine.</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br><br />
----<br />
<br><br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.<br />
<br />
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts Bardic Arts], full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did ''not'' conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine] when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiredat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you ==<br />
<br />
I want to '''thank this page''' for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=71497Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 12008-10-13T13:38:00Z<p>Moulton: /* Peccadildonic Pastimes */ "Be ye not bamboozled." —The Big Bamboozler</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archive 1''' of [[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing]], conversations from October x-y, 2008.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
== On real-world qualifications/authentication==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv. Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "''Proabivouac claimed'' that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you ''referred'' "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq<br />
:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::Ah, now I see what Blissyu2 is referring to. Thank you for directing my attention to it. So now the question to be answered is who posted that entry. As I understand it, Blissyu2 denies posting it directly. Is it Blissyu2's testimony that Baxter posted it at Blissyu2's suggestion? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 16:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::As I said, and as you know unless you are claiming complete and utter stupidity, it automatically invites everyone in your e-mail inbox. I had been e-mailing Poetlister, duh, in relation to the ban. I actually had no idea that Poetlister had ever made an account until your lying statement. Try signing up yourself. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:15, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::What is your evidence and reasoning to support your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Proabiv's beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, or pretensions of knowledge? Have you employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypothesis regarding Proabiv's state of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:33, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::"Be ye not bamboozled." —[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_Donal_Wales The Big Bamboozler] 06:38, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=71496Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 12008-10-13T13:33:14Z<p>Moulton: /* A lot of words from Blissyu2 */ Question to Blissyu2 regarding his hypotheses regarding Proabiv's state of mind.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archive 1''' of [[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing]], conversations from October x-y, 2008.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
== On real-world qualifications/authentication==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv. Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "''Proabivouac claimed'' that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you ''referred'' "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq<br />
:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::Ah, now I see what Blissyu2 is referring to. Thank you for directing my attention to it. So now the question to be answered is who posted that entry. As I understand it, Blissyu2 denies posting it directly. Is it Blissyu2's testimony that Baxter posted it at Blissyu2's suggestion? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 16:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::As I said, and as you know unless you are claiming complete and utter stupidity, it automatically invites everyone in your e-mail inbox. I had been e-mailing Poetlister, duh, in relation to the ban. I actually had no idea that Poetlister had ever made an account until your lying statement. Try signing up yourself. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:15, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::What is your evidence and reasoning to support your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Proabiv's beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, or pretensions of knowledge? Have you employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypothesis regarding Proabiv's state of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:33, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_Review&diff=71495Talk:Wikipedia Review2008-10-13T13:08:57Z<p>Moulton: Question for Greg on identity and authenticity.</p>
<hr />
<div>Keep in mind, ''Wikipedia Review'' is a legal entity, and as such, it really belongs in MyWikiBiz [[Help:Directory space|Directory space]]. All users who have grabbed Directory space and are "squatting" on it need to remember -- they are merely "occupying" those Directory pages until the day the actual owner contacts MyWikiBiz's management. At that moment, a sysop will transfer access privileges to the rightful owner, which will lock out the previous user's access rights.<br />
<br />
In this article's case, I am going to let it stay for a while in [[Help:Main space|Main space]] to see if additional authors wish to collaboratively edit the page. But if it appears that no additional collaborators are seriously adding to the content, I'll move it to Directory space, where it will be protected to the original author's control, '''or''' to the rightful owner or agent of ''Wikipedia Review'' (especially should that request come first). -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:01, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Given that Selina is the recognized owner-operator of W-R, she would presumably be the party entitled to manage (or delegate her designated agent to manage) this article. How would you vet her identity to ensure that some "pretender" did not seek to impersonate her and thereby usurp control of this article? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:08, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=71493Wikipedia Review2008-10-13T13:01:39Z<p>Moulton: /* The Aims of Wikipedia Review */ Somey's statement of the aims of W-R, posted on the occasion of a major outage.</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Wikipedia Review''' is an Internet forum for the discussion of [[Wikimedia]] projects, particularly the English [[Wikipedia]]. As of July 2008 the forum contains over 100,000 posts.<br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was originally founded in November 2005, when it was hosted by ProBoards. It is now located at its own domain name supposedly created by Igor Alexander. The site requires registration using a valid e-mail address to post and claims to discourage the operation of multiple accounts by a single user.<br />
<br />
Criticism of Wikipedia includes plagiarism, discussions of the validity of pseudonymous and "amateur" (or layman) editing, abuse of administrator tools and other corruption, and of the influence of [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]]. As well as criticism, the site has also been cited for its discussion and evaluation of wiki-editing.<br />
<br />
== The Aims of Wikipedia Review ==<br />
<br />
The aims of Wikipedia Review were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 most succinct statement of the aims of W-R] that Somey ever posted:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
The above notice appeared only briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days].</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71490Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-13T12:51:53Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Moulton's Slow-Cooked Stew</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiredat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71489Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-13T12:50:10Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Moulton's Slow-Cooked Stew</p>
<hr />
<div>See '''[[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' for October 8-11, 2008 content.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JH: Hammurabic code like this one &hellip;<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
JH: That not very helpful &hellip; I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H5-The-Bardic-Arts dramaturgy] as vehicle for embedding an educational, cultural, or moral lesson within a dramatic literary storyline featuring [http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/cognition-affect-and-learning/3iyoslgwsp412/2#H7-Multi-Layer-Storybook-Character-Model interacting characters] (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo ''unintentionally'' devised an efficient [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines drama engine] by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Original+Logic+Error%22+HOLE fundamental mistake] was adopting [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness blocking and banning] as the [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio/Moulton%27s_block#Comments_or_questions_for_Mu301 principal tool of governance], thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Worrying_About_Wheel-Warring_in_Our_WikiWoe drama of scapegoating and alienation]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Future use of this page==<br />
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.<br />
<br />
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as [[Criticism_of_crowdsourcing#Announcement|expressed here]]. Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
==Blocked from Wikipedia Review==<br />
<br />
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20679&view=findpost&p=135577 blocked from Wikipedia Review] for revealing that long-time poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1066 "Heat"] is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Formeruser-82 "Homeontherange"], a.k.a. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22andy+lehrer%22+socialist&spell=1 Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist:] Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).<br />
<br />
It also seems probable that the new poster [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=8587 desiredat] is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.<br />
<br />
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I have begun [[Wikipedia Review]] here. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
=="Krimpet" coverup==<br />
<br />
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimpet"Krimpet"] (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20613&view=findpost&p=135471 deleting an entire thread].<br />
<br />
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/], [http://people.rit.edu/~fsr3886/resume.pdf],[http://pear.php.net/user/krimpet], [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/9/541/117]<br />
<br />
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a [http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq&hl=en tranvestite as per the Review's staff]) and Jayjg.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism)]] which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as [[Wikipedia Review]] must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to [[Wikipedia]] itself. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::: This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the [[Sloan Foundation]] can go in mainspace. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label==<br />
<br />
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
: Again, the way to do this is to create an article [[Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia)]] in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are ''about'' the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing/Archive_1&diff=71424Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing/Archive 12008-10-12T23:26:27Z<p>Moulton: /* A lot of words from Blissyu2 */ Good. Now let me understand Blissyu2's account of how that page came to be posted.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archive 1''' of [[Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing]], conversations from October x-y, 2008.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv. Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "''Proabivouac claimed'' that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you ''referred'' "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq<br />
:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::Ah, now I see what Blissyu2 is referring to. Thank you for directing my attention to it. So now the question to be answered is who posted that entry. As I understand it, Blissyu2 denies posting it directly. Is it Blissyu2's testimony that Baxter posted it at Blissyu2's suggestion? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 16:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71413Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T21:53:00Z<p>Moulton: /* A word from Blissyu2 */ I am still looking for a page and passage in which Proabiv is the author of the statement Adrian is attributing to him.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A word from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv. Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "''Proabivouac claimed'' that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you [i]referred[/i] "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71412Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T21:41:23Z<p>Moulton: /* A word from Blissyu2 */ Rephrasing one more time my request to Blissy to provide a link to a page wherein Proabiv makes the claim which Blissy alleges Proabiv made.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A word from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv. Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "''Proabivouac claimed'' that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT) <br />
<br />
:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you [i]referred[/i] "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71406Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T20:05:22Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Law & Order is in continual reruns on the TNT Cable Channel. The advertising slogan of that channel is: We Know Drama.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A word from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.<br />
# Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.<br />
<br />
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question &mdash; If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Drama_Engines Drama Engine]. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71403Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T18:16:08Z<p>Moulton: /* Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent */ Moulton's analysis of the "wrongness" in the architecture of WMF-sponsored projects.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A word from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Try starting on Guy Fawkes Day (November 5th). That is when the original WR started. You might think that that is bad, but the current WR people like to pretend that various things in WR's history didn't happen, or didn't happen then. Starting on November 5th would be a good time because it would indicate that you are aiming for truth, and it would also recognise the original aims of Wikipedia Review and the original people who were involved in it who did so much to make it what it is today. Since you are aiming for November 1st anyway, why not wait 4 more days? Planning is good, and I wonder if you have planned for long enough. Indeed, the original WR should have planned more, although I am not sure that that is part of the problems that exist today. If they had planned more, they probably would never have allowed pro-Wikipedia people to come in the first place, would have required registration and would have started on a place that had non-public forums. The planning for the new domain name was well thought out, about 2 1/2 months worth of planning actually went into it. The issue wasn't so much that the planning was bad, but rather that it all fell apart when Selina took control. We have been trying to get things to go back to our plan ever since. If the original plans had been allowed to happen, well, WR today would be a much better place. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:19, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay 2 things that I would like: 1) Don't call me Blissy - it is Blissyu2, or you can call me Adrian if you hate putting in the "u2" in there. That is a joke based on my allergies and my sneezing 15-20 times per day, every day, for the past 25 years. Blissy means nothing, and I find it really annoying. 2) I would like it if you, Alison, and everyone else who has debated about my right to prove that someone is lying about me instead focussed on fixing up the lie. Sorry, but if someone has lied about me, damaged my real name and my reputation, initiated dozens of other smears about me, then I *DO* have a right to prove them wrong. Furthermore, I *DO* have a right to call them a liar. As I said, if and when Proabviouc removes his statements and adds in a public apology on that page to say that he was mistaken, with a reasonable explanation why, then I will accept that. Alternatively, if he is prepared to try to prove, in a court of law, that what he has said about me is true, then we can go through that route. Rather than trying to "debate" about my right to call him a liar for, uh, lying about me, why don't you instead try to use that energy to get him to get rid of those awful, false, hurtful statements that he made that look true in a believable-looking document? Huh? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:28, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Not everyone is going to agree==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent==<br />
<br />
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] &mdash; a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71387Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T15:06:13Z<p>Moulton: /* Peccadildonic Pastimes */ Published aims of W-R, per Somey.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:<br />
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><br />
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That&#39;s what we&#39;re doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote><br />
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.<br />
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Not everyone is going to agree ==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71386Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T14:45:38Z<p>Moulton: /* Invitation-only */ Please do not assign the label "lie" to errors or misconceptions where there is little or no evidence or proof of intentional deception.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Notes & Queries==<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources &mdash; though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement &mdash; but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.<br />
<br />
'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Consider the Crowdsource==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.<br />
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"<br />
** That leads me to ask:<br />
*** Is the crowd the source?<br />
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?<br />
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?<br />
<br />
==The Importance of Being Nathan==<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.<br />
<br />
'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub><br />
<br />
==Suggest we move to the "article"==<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.<br />
<br />
'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!<br />
<br />
==A word from Joe==<br />
<br />
WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==<br />
<br />
My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.<br />
<br />
Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on. <br />
<br />
I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name. <br />
<br />
Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to ''what most people would call'' conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you). <br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.<br />
<br />
::::As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.<br />
<br />
::::As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?<br />
<br />
::::Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:<br />
::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''<br />
:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review. <br />
<br />
Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped). <br />
<br />
FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things! <br />
<br />
Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." <br />
:If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?<br />
:Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 passage in W-R] suggesting that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac] came from the author of the PoetGuy personas? <br />
:Also, can you explain why, in [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt your cited reference], you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account. <br />
:[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 in the statement made to Mindspillage] it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==<br />
<br />
Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible. <br />
<br />
It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==<br />
<br />
What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.<br />
<br />
If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.<br />
<br />
[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==<br />
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.<br />
<br />
I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that<br />
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.<br />
<br />
The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.<br />
<br />
For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons" <br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?<br />
<br />
:::William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!<br />
<br />
:::Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
::In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.<br />
<br />
::My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of [http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm Adam Smith] and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.<br />
<br />
::Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about. <br />
<br />
::Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law][[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Expectation of quality===<br />
Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."<br />
<br />
:I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)<br />
<br />
::Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states theory of mind]" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to ''falsify'' all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent ''failure to falsify'' a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a ''constructed reality'' that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blog ==<br />
<br />
I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:<br />
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.<br />
<embed><br />
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form><br />
</embed><br />
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Old-Fangled Email List==<br />
<br />
JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet &mdash; last millennium I still had a life &mdash; I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Support ==<br />
<br />
Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).<br />
<br />
I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.<br />
<br />
I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.<br />
<br />
I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.<br />
<br />
[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.<br />
<br />
A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean "Goethean" Zim..] ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.<br />
<br />
Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged.<br />
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am ''prepared'' to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute '''within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines''', to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Joe, upthread you wrote:<br />
<BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><BlockQuote><Font Color=maroon><br />
AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN. </Font><br />
</BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote></BlockQuote><br />
:::::Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: '''Rule of Law'''.<br />
:::::Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?<br />
:::::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::::::You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."<br />
<br />
::::::Moulton, Read, think, then write. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==When can we start?==<br />
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the [[Sloan Foundation]] could pick up and read with interest or disgust. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Invitation-only==<br />
<br />
I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) [[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the <s>fact</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yup.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be ''intentionally deceptive''. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an ''intentional deception'', as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of ''tsuris'' here. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Envoi==<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants<br />
has now been extended to include wikipediots,<br />
and my definition of a wikipediot<br />
has now been expanded to include<br />
anyone who thinks that wikipedia<br />
can be fixed.<br />
<br />
i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review<br />
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --<br />
<br />
life is just too short for that ...<br />
</pre><br />
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Answer for Jon==<br />
For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will<br />
say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals<br />
[http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speechlink title]<br />
<br />
Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation<br />
then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.<br />
<br />
See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:<br />
<blockquote>People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other ''so long as those acts are not in violation of the law''(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People ''who have committed no wrong''(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file ''a frivolous lawsuit''(Italic mine...''note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after'') and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33</blockquote><br />
<br />
In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.<br />
<br />
This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym [[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk. <br />
<br />
:Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Not everyone is going to agree ==<br />
<br />
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.<br />
<br />
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules. <br />
<br />
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.<br />
<br />
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.<br />
<br />
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth. <br />
<br />
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moultonhttps://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71379Criticism of crowdsourcing2008-10-12T13:16:24Z<p>Moulton: /* Name ideas */ What is the name of the concept of "nomenclature"?</p>
<hr />
<div>Consider that [http://www.wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to '''establish a new forum for research and discussion''' of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.<br />
<br />
Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.<br />
<br />
==Announcement==<br />
As the owner of this website, and as the primary agent for a new forum for research and discussion of information management on the Internet, I would like to announce that I am about 90% resolved to move forward in the following way:<br />
*The new forum will begin as a closed, "team edited" blog, open to ''comment'' by the general public. One new blog post will appear every Monday. Comments may be censored only by a majority vote of the management.<br />
*I will invite four other real-name people to form a set of '''Five Founders'''. Each of these men or women will have the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain, through a short partnership contract.<br />
*Each Founder will be responsible for drafting one blog post, on a rotating basis, such that '''Founder A''' will write the Week 1 post, '''Founder B''' will write the Week 2 post, and so on. The first draft of the post will be submitted on Thursdays, and the rest of the Founders may touch up and improve copy on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; but the Monday publication will carry the byline of the drafting author/Founder.<br />
*Each Founder will be allowed one "rain check" per year (to miss one every-five-weeks blog posting), but a second missed posting will result in the Founder losing contractual partnership.<br />
*Every three months, the Founders will discuss and vote on the addition of new members ('''New Partners''') who will be inserted into the rotating blog production cycle. After a quarterly probation period, they will also be given the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain.<br />
*In this way, the body of authors will grow, and the duty cycle of each member will decrease over time. If the duty cycle becomes too sporadic for the partners' taste, then we could vote to double the frequency of the blog, with new posts being published on Mondays ''and'' Thursdays.<br />
At this time, I would like interested Founder candidates to reach out to me by private e-mail (ResearchBiz <nowiki><at></nowiki> gmail.com). As stated above, real-names matching to authenticated bios will be required, at least to be shared within the private partnership contract, but not necessarily to the public at large. Recommendations for other Founders are welcome, as well. I urge ''private'' correspondence on this founding process, as I don't want this site to turn into a public discussion of real-name qualities and drawbacks. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:10, 12 October 2008 (PDT) ([[Directory:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory Kohs]])<br />
<br />
==Founding principles==<br />
<br />
# Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of unethical, unprofessional characteristics of certain types of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice and demeanor in order to describe documented situations involving these issues. Fueling of "drama" and interpersonal conflicts will be discouraged where possible. However, it may be necessary to discuss individual participants on particular websites in specific situations, such as to exemplify "conflict of interest" problems or to scrutinize the character of a website's leadership.<br />
# Both the ownership and administrative management of the new forum shall all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.<br />
# The target audience of the forum will be journalists who publish and broadcast in the areas of technology and information, academics whose research touches these subjects, and the general public. Some of those in the targeted audience will not have an intimate understanding of the inner workings and jargon of subject site policies (e.g., Wikipedia has an extremely complex rule set), so our forum will attempt to address such intricacies by spelling them out in layman's terms. <br />
# Topical discussions will not be limited to Wikipedia. Other Internet sites for examination may include Google Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikia, Biographicon, Veropedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:<br />
#* User-generated content<br />
#* Free licenses, the "Free culture movement", and copyright violations<br />
#* Wikis<br />
#* Section 230 considerations<br />
#* Anonymity and privacy on the Internet<br />
# Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.<br />
<br />
==Format==<br />
Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?<br />
<br />
===Message board===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Fluid discussions between members<br />
::More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Derailment of threads<br />
::Appears amateur<br />
::More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
<br />
===Wiki===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board<br />
::There is a clear division between content and discussion thereof.<br />
::The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page<br />
::Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::I think this is the way I'm leaning, but I reserve the right to change my mind. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:59, 10 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I do. A wiki can work perfectly well if participation is restricted and the management exercises diligence over its contents. -- Signed by [[User:Proabivouac]]00:58, October 11, 2008<br />
<br />
===Combination of Message Board/Wiki===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.<br />
::Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint. The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. '''If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?'''<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.<br />
::Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
<br />
::Absolutely this is the way to go, although, as stated elsewhere, I think that a wiki can only work properly with controlled articles, where individual articles are controlled by someone who is an expert on the topic. Closed membership of everything is essential too. Invite only or approved by existing members/moderators [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Blog, with "closed" team of editors===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Continuity and quality of message<br />
::"Outsiders" can participate through lively Comment fields<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Seems "closed" to collaboration<br />
::Limited set of creative thoughts and opinions<br />
::Linear display arranged by post date<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::Suddenly leaning a lot more toward this, at least as a fresh beginning. If a wiki is spawned later in the process, that's fine, too. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::Given recent developments and some other factors, I'm inclined to go this way right now as well.[[User:Paul Wehage|Paul Wehage]] 16:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
::I think that a blog works too. Indeed, I think that all 3 of wiki, blog and forum can work in coordination happily. A blog can act like news. Maybe even a mailing list too to talk about important issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
===Mailing list===<br />
:'''Pros'''<br />
::Wide reach for participation<br />
:'''Cons'''<br />
::Moderating rules could be challenging<br />
::Is the content history fully searchable?<br />
::Very limited format possibilities<br />
::Fills up participants' inboxes<br />
:'''Do you vote for this?'''<br />
::As stated above, "all of the above" works well. If a mailing list was used simply as a daily or even weekly summary of what has happened, it could work well. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Name ideas==<br />
<br />
What might we call this site?<br />
: Web Of Lies<br />
: Collective Ignorance<br />
: Criticism of Crowdsourcing<br />
: Wrongs of the Internet<br />
: Rethinking Free Culture<br />
: Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis<br />
: WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)<br />
: Center for Internet Criticism<br />
: Internet Ethics Report<br />
: Internet Concerns<br />
: The Folly of Crowds<br />
: CyberCulture Review<br />
<br />
One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.<br />
<br />
Conversely, even a forum with a lousy name like "Wikback.com" was quite successful for the brief time before its owner began to censor content in haphazard and unethical ways.<br />
<br />
'''Comments on suggested names:'''<br />
: It doesn't really matter what name you choose, as people will eventually get used to it. Criticism of Crowdsourcing, the name of this article, seems good enough to me. Otherwise, WikiReader is probably a good one. I had liked WikipediaCritics too, but that domain name is now taken. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I disagree on the importance and significance of nomenclature. Names should be as succinct, unambiguous, descriptive, distinctive, and memorable as possible so that people can reliably recognize the name and easily find the proper referent to it. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Reserved domain names==<br />
*WikipediaMustDie.com<br />
*GregoryKohs.com<br />
*MimboJimbo.com<br />
*MyWikiBiz.com<br />
<br />
'''Comments on domain names:'''<br />
<br />
:Ideally, I think that a domain name that is related to whatever is the chosen name would be ideal. The domain name can be shortened in some ways though. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:35, 11 October 2008 (PDT)</div>Moulton