On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does or fails to do. Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without allowing debate, for engaging in too much time-wasting debate instead of useful action, for being too fascistic, for being too anarchistic, for being too highbrow, too lowbrow, too middlebrow, too left-wing, too right-wing, too pro-American, too anti-American, too academic, too anti-academic, too pop-cultural, too anti-pop-cultural; for airing too much dirty laundry in public, for trying to shove its flaws under the carpet; because it's an unstoppable juggernaut, because it's an unstable mess that's about to collapse; it's capitalist, it's communist; Jimbo screws it up by exercising his personal whims, Jimbo is a do-nothing figurehead who refuses to act at all; critics get harrassed, critics get ignored; people get banned unfairly, people don't get banned who deserve it; its mailing lists and IRC rooms have nothing but idle, pointless, off-topic chitchat; its mailing lists and IRC rooms are where all the important policy decisions get made to the exclusion of people who participate on the actual Wikipedia discussion pages.
On 12/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does or fails to do. Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without allowing debate, for engaging in too much time-wasting debate instead of useful action, for being too fascistic, for being too anarchistic, for being too highbrow, too lowbrow, too middlebrow, too left-wing, too right-wing, too pro-American, too anti-American, too academic, too anti-academic, too pop-cultural, too anti-pop-cultural; for airing too much dirty laundry in public, for trying to shove its flaws under the carpet; because it's an unstoppable juggernaut, because it's an unstable mess that's about to collapse; it's capitalist, it's communist; Jimbo screws it up by exercising his personal whims, Jimbo is a do-nothing figurehead who refuses to act at all; critics get harrassed, critics get ignored; people get banned unfairly, people don't get banned who deserve it; its mailing lists and IRC rooms have nothing but idle, pointless, off-topic chitchat; its mailing lists and IRC rooms are where all the important policy decisions get made to the exclusion of people who participate on the actual Wikipedia discussion pages.
This should be on a plaque somewhere.
--Ryan
On 30/12/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does or fails to do. Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without
This should be on a plaque somewhere.
I chiseled it on one at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia_Watch (if that's ok with Daniel ;-)
- d.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does or fails to do.
Wikipedia Review is like a club of kids who all got expelled from a US high school (which is difficult, you have to really be a screwup), and then get together to complain about it. Even real-life expellees have the sense to shut up and go on to their career in crime or whatever :-) ; at Wikipedia Review they're too pathetic even to get on with their lives.
Stan
It reminds me a lot of the almost identical bash-everything-possible forums that popped up a little while after eBay starting getting big. 20 people with big mouths somehow think their volume trumps 20,000 people who aren't in the room.
On 12/29/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 at 23:35, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Uncyclopaedia or the Wikipedia Review are going to love this one.
Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does or fails to do.
Wikipedia Review is like a club of kids who all got expelled from a US high school (which is difficult, you have to really be a screwup), and then get together to complain about it. Even real-life expellees have the sense to shut up and go on to their career in crime or whatever :-) ; at Wikipedia Review they're too pathetic even to get on with their lives.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l