Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 496 posts

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#481

Post by mdnahas »

lucideer wrote: post #287
lucideer wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to contribute semi-regularly to Wikipedia in the past, but tried contributing recently & found the experience to be off-putting (to put it mildly). I also have long been frustrated with certain areas of Wikipedia that I feel struggle so significantly with NPV that they're rendered beyond useless, likely net harmful. (These are not the topics I've attempted contributing to recently, I wouldn't dare). I'm contin…

To add a thought on tackling the listed faults: 1. I suspect the NPV problem may be a fundamentally unsolvable problem (or at least one that would literally take a global paradigm shift in how all societies are structured to do so). This seems outside of Wikipedia's control. Attempting any draconian measures to tackle it might have negative knock-on effects on many of the other assets that give Wikipedia it's value.…

I’ve had a similar experience. I’ve edited Wikipedia pages for ages. I was able to create Wikipedia pages a while ago. Recently, I tried to create a page (“quantity controls”, a less well known relative of price controls in economics) and it got deleted for bullshit reasons.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#482

Post by thefz »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #431
rollcat wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any modern programming environment / IDE / toolchain / etc that doesn't heavily rely on open source work? Even initially-proprietary solutions like .NET are mostly OSS nowadays.

SQL server comes to mind

Yup

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#483

Post by howenterprisey »

zahlman wrote: post #379
howenterprisey wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I said anyone can verify it, I meant it; go make an account on wikipediocracy, go to the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forums, and go through the posts by that user. Quite to the contrary, it's a very transparent organization because edit histories are public. It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist, which they don't. Wikipediocracy…

> It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist Please don't pretend as if people having a discussion at this level are unaware of the facilities available for permanent deletion on Wikipedia (the so-called "oversight"). > Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing. "Wikipedia doxxing" clearly means doxxing performed by and/or against Wikipedian…

My thesis is that Wikipedianon's comment implies Wikipedia editors (specifically, "well-known" editors and "admins") doxx each other all the time, but that's hilariously wrong. Doxxing mostly comes from assholes outside the community, such as those who post on Wikipediocracy.

Yes, on-project doxxing gets OS'd but it also results in discussions and bans which can be reviewed. And from those you can easily determine that it's truly rare.

When I said to go to the forums, that was unfortunately unclear wording; I meant it's trivial to verify that Beeblebrox didn't doxx anyone in his postings.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#484

Post by chris_wot »

amiga386 wrote: post #281
throwaway2037 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you get permanently banned? And what stops you from creating a new account?

> Why did you get permanently banned. Ta bu shi da yu created the citation needed template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation... (I remember that account name from Kuro5hin. Much respect!) He edited under several accounts, all of which are permabanned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aussie_Article_Writer Why? Because he'd earned an interaction ban (IBAN) from engaging with BrownHairedGi…

Curious - and do you know what I got the one-way IBAN for? The answer is: nothing.

I can assure you, I was not doing the instigating. Though I did comment on her RFA, not realising it was not yet submitted. There was never an appropriate review of my one-way IBAN, and nobody has been able to explain why this was done given her vile and ongoing obnoxious comments about myself. unless you consider her accusing me of "whining" to have been acceptable, something not a single person commented on. Also, I had been asking them not to comment on my talk page and had taken it to WP:AN/I. Not sure why you consider this to have been something that I was not allowed to ask for review about?

I had no part in the scrubbing of that page. That was the ArbCom, for reasons only known to themselves. Probably instigated by then-arbitrator Beeblebrox, who was later suspended from ArbCom for disclosing ArbCom matters on an external anti-Wikipedia site.

Also: I was not doing any editing of Brisbane categories. I don't know where you got that from.

Furthermore, I have not edited Wikipedia since I was banned. If you are implying otherwise, then you are wrong.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#485

Post by chris_wot »

andrepd wrote: post #311
ForOldHack wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. She did not almost destroy the place, she successfully turned Wikipedia into an intellectual black hole encompassing the entire human history. There are only unprintable words to describe her vileness.

I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that.

She was removed as an admin for the most extraordinary level of bullying. She continued bullying right up to when she was finally indefinitely blocked. I was one of the people she bullied. She had a coterie of rabid followers and so was allowed to run riot for years. There were many, many good editors who left because of her behaviour.

What did she do on Wikipedia?

She "fixed" barelinks and did categorization work. On the former, she wrote a script that utterly buggered up links to the extent they were being cleaned up long after she was banned. On the latter, she was so toxic that she was eventually blocked for her actions on categories.

She was a toxic editor who did virtually no editing of content on the site.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#486

Post by chris_wot »

rkomorn wrote: post #212
chris_wot wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that's bad? I got permanently banned and I started many important things on Wikipedia - like the admins noticeboard, a number of Australia communities, and the [citation needed]. I wrote dozens of articles about Australian women - none of them gave a shit and so I'm not able to write about them any more. They are, by and large, a bunch of horrible bullies and losers - many Wikipedians don't actually care ab…

> and the [citation needed] Citation needed.

You could look at the history.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#487

Post by chris_wot »

ForOldHack wrote: post #293
rkomorn wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the [citation needed] Citation needed.

You have been trolled by Wikipedia troll bot(tm). - there are hundreds of thousands of them - the hypnotized never lie.

If you say so.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#488

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

howenterprisey wrote: post #483
zahlman wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist Please don't pretend as if people having a discussion at this level are unaware of the facilities available for permanent deletion on Wikipedia (the so-called "oversight"). > Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing. "Wikipedia doxxing" clearly means doxxing performed by and/or against Wikipedian…

My thesis is that Wikipedianon's comment implies Wikipedia editors (specifically, "well-known" editors and "admins") doxx each other all the time, but that's hilariously wrong. Doxxing mostly comes from assholes outside the community, such as those who post on Wikipediocracy. Yes, on-project doxxing gets OS'd but it also results in discussions and bans which can be reviewed. And from those you can easily determine th…

This is like claiming that you didn't key someone's car, because the scratches weren't signed with your signature.

No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#489

Post by chris_wot »

squigz wrote: post #252
chris_wot wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that's bad? I got permanently banned and I started many important things on Wikipedia - like the admins noticeboard, a number of Australia communities, and the [citation needed]. I wrote dozens of articles about Australian women - none of them gave a shit and so I'm not able to write about them any more. They are, by and large, a bunch of horrible bullies and losers - many Wikipedians don't actually care ab…

Why'd you get banned? Also I don't think it's necessary to call people names.

I'm not calling her names - she was eventually banned for bullying.

Re: Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

#490

Post by howenterprisey »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #488
howenterprisey wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thesis is that Wikipedianon's comment implies Wikipedia editors (specifically, "well-known" editors and "admins") doxx each other all the time, but that's hilariously wrong. Doxxing mostly comes from assholes outside the community, such as those who post on Wikipediocracy. Yes, on-project doxxing gets OS'd but it also results in discussions and bans which can be reviewed. And from those you can easily determine th…

This is like claiming that you didn't key someone's car, because the scratches weren't signed with your signature. No one doxxing others in that particular clique is going to do it from anything other than a burner account.

Okay, but now that's an unfalsifiable statement. What makes you think the burners are tied to the well-known accounts?
Post reply on HN