On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to work on a project. -Matt
*You* are here to build an encylcopaedia. The Wikipaedia community has already stated loud and clear they do not want my help with that.
Your interpretation. Myself, I think what has been said is that they are uncomfortable with how permitting editing through Tor allows vandals and sockpuppeteers to evade scrutiny, and that unfortunately this also means that editors of good will who desire to use Tor for reasons of anonymity cannot.
I have already explained that there are methods of destructive editing and Sybil attack control better than simply getting rid of all edits from Tor.
In any case, I used Tor, and they didn't want me to edit. Case closed.
I am here because Wikipaedia is seriously hurting people, often being a worse attack site than Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and it needs to stop.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
This is not to say that there are not problems - there are and sometimes they are serious.
However, a comparison between the two projects shows that Wikipedia is trying to be a useful resource and ED is trying to get a rise out of people for their own amusement by publishing whatever hurts those they don't like. I think that's a major difference, personally.
-Matt
Is is so ridiculous?
If a person who has been attacked from Encyclopaedia Dramatica tries to get material removed, Encyclopaedia Dramatica makes the article on that person worse. If the person tries to blank the page on him or her, Encyclopaedia Dramatica calls the person a vandal and blocks him or her. As far as Encyclopaedia Dramatica is concerned, they have a right to do this because of *their* free speech and *their* policies.
If a living person, who is not particularly notable, has an article about him or her on Wikipaedia... well, what then? There are those on Wikipaedia who would set the threshhold for notability very low, and refuse to delete an article on request from any subject who met that level of notability. Enough that they often win such debates. Hell, what happened to Mr. D. Bra ndt? He complained, and his article got worse.
And of course, Wikipaedia lets Google index all namespaces, so if you have a user page, you may as well have a biography. Four years after someone is banned, negative Wikipaedia pages on him or her still show up on top of Google. Does being banned from Wikipaedia make a person notable all of the sudden? Some banned users have edited under or disclosed their real names - others use long-standing pseudonyms.
Apparently, a banned user who publicly reveals himself to be a pedophile who would have a relationship with a child if he has the chance can get his user/talk pages blanked, but not a banned user who posted semi-nude pictures which, so far as we know, were of herself, although to be fair there wasn't really any evidence one way or the other as to whether the pictures were of her.
And then Wikipaedia comes up with justifications such as 'banned users are assholes - they deserve it'. At least Encyclopaedia Dramatica doesn't tell you that you deserve it, they just say 'but it's made of lulz!' or something.
And then of course Wikipaedia says even more cruel things to the person - just like Encylcopaedia Dramatica.
And Wikipaedia has higher Google rankings than Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
As for Wikipaedia Review? Well, they may be an attack site, but Wikipaedia makes them look like gentlemen. I've had a much easier time getting personal things about myself removed from Wikipaedia Review than from Wikipaedia, and it's not like the Wikipaedia Review doesn't hate me.