On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad"
<newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't say whether it's a good idea or
not for Wil to participate on
> Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
> badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
> it reflects badly on Lila.
But is there anybody who has actually expressed that
view?
I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted
arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and
having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's
definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists
to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes
first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to
look at it I feel stupider afterwards.
Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the
best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff
with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun
and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias
for fun as a kid.
I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia.
Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow
humans are, really.
- d.