On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, "Newyorkbrad" newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila.
But is there anybody who has actually expressed that view?
I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers, trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way. en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if they're their constituency is how we ended up with 2014's top-voted arbitrator getting busted as actually being a Wikipediocracy troll and having to resign on his first day. (Great going, guys - that's definitely how to maintain that all-important decorum) The site exists to further bitterness and wikispamming (it's not clear which comes first; possibly both equally) and every time I'm foolish enough to look at it I feel stupider afterwards.
Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your question "what's going on?" in a sentence (or a paragraph or an essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not sure they're things that will stand you in good stead. Probably the best way to answer your actual question is to dive in, write stuff with references, add photos, etc. It's actually pretty good nerdy fun and I recommend it if you're the sort of person who read encyclopedias for fun as a kid.
I'd definitely say there's no royal road to knowledge of Wikipedia. Dive in and do it and discover how lovely and infuriating your fellow humans are, really.
- d.