[WikiEN-l] [Redacted] complaining Was: Admins who do not have email this user enabled (list inside)

[Armed Blowfish]

On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2007, Matthew Brown <morven at 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.