Wikitruth.info seems to be slashdotted, but according to the Google cache, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache: 8yjjGVPUOb0J:www.wikitruth.info/ or http://tinyurl.com/otg6n , the Wikitruth wiki is not editable, for our own good.
In its words: "We want you to read this website, not be locked in a full-on piss-battle over changing varying articles to reflect the whims and madness of a thousand people. Wikis do work, make no mistake, but they ultimately only work when you have a small amount of people doing the editing. Sure, it progresses a little slower... but it progresses."
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
On 4/16/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
In its words: "We want you to read this website, not be locked in a full-on piss-battle over changing varying articles to reflect the whims and madness of a thousand people. Wikis do work, make no mistake, but they ultimately only work when you have a small amount of people doing the editing. Sure, it progresses a little slower... but it progresses."
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
I love it when anti-Wikimedia sites use the MediaWiki engine. Makes my day.
I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia, not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.
On 4/17/06, Blackcap snoutwood@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
In its words: "We want you to read this website, not be locked in a full-on piss-battle over changing varying articles to reflect the whims and madness of a thousand people. Wikis do work, make no mistake, but they ultimately only work when you have a small amount of people doing the editing. Sure, it progresses a little slower... but it progresses."
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
I love it when anti-Wikimedia sites use the MediaWiki engine. Makes my day. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia, not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.
It's not so much that they are using a wiki. It is that they are using software they it primarily designed to run Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects. Thus they accept our developers at least know what they are doing.
-- geni
Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're all about the editors and admins. Don't get me wrong -- I've read through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response? I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
On 4/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia, not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.
It's not so much that they are using a wiki. It is that they are using software they it primarily designed to run Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects. Thus they accept our developers at least know what they are doing.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're all about the editors and admins. Don't get me wrong -- I've read through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?
No. Some are due simply to wikipedia's size (succeed and some people will attack you). However a lot are due to people falling out with Wikipedia on a personal level. They are not "assholes" just people who for one reason or another can't work too well with the Wikipedia community (ok there are some exceptions). When blocked they look for someone to blame. The cabal, rogue admins the system whatever.
I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
The problem is a lot of the stuff comes from people we know and have long since become fed up with. A lot of the rest is just the same repeated acusations that we all know and love .
Once you extract the namecalling from wikitruth what you are left with are the standard critism of WP:OFFICE and Jimbo. Their Vandalism exposed article is outdated (particularly in the case of en.wikipedia). I suspect they probably do have an admin on board. Other than wishing they would follow the GFDL I don't really care.
-- geni
On 4/17/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered
with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
It wasn't my intention to answer their criticisms by mocking them, in fact, I didn't mean to mock them at all. I'm entirely in agreeance with you that mockery isn't helpful to solving disputes, but I wasn't after curing the troubles but merely adding in a bit of ironic humor.
Fair enough; sorry.
On 4/17/06, Blackcap snoutwood@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:I think the answer is the former, but every time attacks are answered
with mockery rather than thought I get nudged toward the latter.
It wasn't my intention to answer their criticisms by mocking them, in fact, I didn't mean to mock them at all. I'm entirely in agreeance with you that mockery isn't helpful to solving disputes, but I wasn't after curing the troubles but merely adding in a bit of ironic humor. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're all about the editors and admins. Don't get me wrong -- I've read through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?
I think we should approach all criticisms with an active mind and judge the criticism on its own merits. What I have managed to see of WikiTruth (it seems to be down a lot) suggests strongly to me that it is a joke or prank by some banned wikipedia users rather than a serious attempt at criticism.
Was me stepping into the Brian Peppers thing and saying that, yes, we will follow deletion policy and not have out-of-policy multiple votes wrong? Opinions may differ and we can and should and *have* had long discussions about it. Was it wrong for Sam Korn to act boldly to remove the Lolicon image? Opinions again may differ and we can and should and *have* had long discussions about it.
But it is pretty difficult to sustain the argument that our normal process of give-and-take and editorial judgment is censorship. Does Wikipedia delete things? Absolutely we do, and with good reason.
Notice that WikiTruth is reprinting an attack article written about my little girl, and then ask yourself if this is good faith criticism or trollng.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:52:19 -0700, you wrote:
Notice that WikiTruth is reprinting an attack article written about my little girl, and then ask yourself if this is good faith criticism or trollng.
I think that says all we need to know about them. Since when has it been appropriate to use pre-school children as a tool to attack their parents? Guy (JzG)
On 4/18/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Sure, but none of their criticisms are about the developers; they're all about the editors and admins. Don't get me wrong -- I've read through the site, and sometimes they seem like assholes -- but I think that the question deserves serious thought: are attack sites like this just a product of the huge wikipedia userbase, or are wikipedia's problems severe enough that WikiTruth is an understandable response?
Was me stepping into the Brian Peppers thing and saying that, yes, we will follow deletion policy and not have out-of-policy multiple votes wrong?
You in no way followed deletion policy. The previous votes applied to a completely diffierent version. If you have a problem with deletion policy in this respect take it up with the inclusionists.
-- geni
On 4/18/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Notice that WikiTruth is reprinting an attack article written about my little girl, and then ask yourself if this is good faith criticism or trollng.
In fairness, they deleted that particular page.
# (Deletion log); 07:01 . . Nibbler (Talk) (deleted "Uncensored:Kira Wales": Our apologies to Jimbo and his Family.)
The tone on the site is rather juvenile, I wouldn't take it too seriously. They might actually be cooperative in cases of real legal trouble, and at least there's human beings looking at the content they copy. The same cannot be said about hundreds of outdated mirrors in many different countries. Given that it typically takes significant time for potentially libelous information to be removed, it is highly likely that it replicates before that happens.
I do not think there's anything that can be done about this. Our legal strategy needs to take it into account.
As for wikitruth.info, the wisest thing to do is probably to ignore them, at least for now.
Erik
geni wrote:
On 4/18/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree with wikitruth, but there doesn't seem to be anything particularly ironic about them using a wiki: they're anti-wikipedia, not anti-wiki or anti-free-software.
It's not so much that they are using a wiki. It is that they are using software they it primarily designed to run Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects. Thus they accept our developers at least know what they are doing.
Sounds as if they have been flattened on their own irony board.
Ec