On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized criticisms of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity, or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
On 28/06/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized criticisms of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity, or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
Have a look at the entries for the major proponents of BADSITES, and then draw your own conclusions...
Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins.
On 6/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/06/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized
criticisms
of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity, or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
Have a look at the entries for the major proponents of BADSITES, and then draw your own conclusions...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At least they tried to create a compendium of valid criticism without the crap that Wikitruth has. Now it's just full of conspiracy theories.
-Sean William
On 6/27/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins.
On 6/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/06/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized
criticisms
of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity, or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
Have a look at the entries for the major proponents of BADSITES, and then draw your own conclusions...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/28/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins.
Am I the only one who finds this thinking very troubling?
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 6/28/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins.
Am I the only one who finds this thinking very troubling?
Nope.
In thinking about this, I'm reminded of the New York Times and their Public Editor:
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/
The basic notion is that rather than take a defensive posture in the face of complaints, they've hired somebody independent whose job it is to invite the complaints and investigate them.
I like that spirit. It sure makes me trust them more.
William
On 6/27/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins.
On 6/27/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/06/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized
criticisms
of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity, or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
Have a look at the entries for the major proponents of BADSITES, and then draw your own conclusions...
Complaining about admins is an attack on Wikipedia?
The site is boring. It looks just like the other one. I've now spent a total of less than five minutes on this one and the other one--one more minute and I WILL die from boredom.
Why discuss second-rate, derivate, useless, just up, boring sites on this list-serve? I can't see one interesting or compelling thing at this site that could make me stay longer than one minute or could possible justify my having gone their in the first place.
It's like that guy and his articles--it's now all about this list discussing him, there is nothing else to it. And don't tell me to read the history, it's boring.
That's the biggest point about COI imo, offenders bore the readers to death causing an overall drop in readership and usefulness of Wikipedia. These "wikipedia attack" sites and attackers are solely designed to get the attention of Wikipedia admins who scream that anyone who complains about an admin is a troll (as if they're not human and no one would ever complain about them legitimately).
It's as if these people (those calling those who criticize admins) are trolling for people to attack. Look, here's another attack site, say something about it so I can call you a troll.
It's boring--insufferably boring, over the top boring, relentlessly boring.
I hope this was boring.
KP
My sense is that Wikiabuse was created (a) out of a sense that Wikipedia cannot be trusted to provide an accurate history of what's going on in it, and (b) that there's a need to be able to look this stuff up about admins without having to sift through dozens and dozens of diffs and comments and such. I make no claim as to being inclined for or against either of these-- well, the second, if well executed, would make it easier to understand the disputes. But I see from what little I've followed this on WR that the creators of the site are pretty disappointed in it. And I also think it's about time that admins accepted that they are going to be subjected to public, off-WP criticism, and get a thicker skin about "attacks".