Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
:With all due respect, you should learn to count. He made precisely three reverts, and was entirely within the rules. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
:With all due respect, you should learn to count. He made precisely three reverts, and was entirely within the rules. [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:: Wikipedia is just the latest casualty to "O'Sullivan's Law"; and the double-standards and oily patrician-like attitudes of some admins are blatant. I expect the whole place to be thoroughly ''dhimmi'' within a year -- what else is possible from a "tragedy of the commons" train-wreck built on a premise that a jihadist jackasshole stands on equal-footing to a studious researcher? The "fix" is already in with "anonymous editor" and his Islamist buddies Yuber & Co. --[[User:Mike18xx|Mike18xx]] 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
:: Wikipedia is just the latest casualty to "O'Sullivan's Law"; and the double-standards and oily patrician-like attitudes of some admins are blatant. I expect the whole place to be thoroughly ''dhimmi'' within a year -- what else is possible from a "tragedy of the commons" train-wreck built on a premise that a jihadist jackasshole stands on equal-footing to a studious researcher? The "fix" is already in with "anonymous editor" and his Islamist buddies Yuber & Co. --[[User:Mike18xx|Mike18xx]] 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::In my opinion, Monk should not be an admin, as I believe he abuses his tools on people. You should complain on ANI and other places. --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:06, 10 February 2006
File:20051216h.jpg I Have The Power Fri, December 16 2005 - 07:58 AM by: Tycho
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs available as a publically manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our revolting fancruft.
That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the institution.
I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.
Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.
The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
Past Spleenings of the Discordant Mob
Current Spleenings of the Discordant Mob:
Jihad/Dhimmi Watch
Let me explain my contention with quoting selections from the site into the Wikipedia articles. When half of the content of the stub is quoted from the site itself, it creates a POV issue, and it also illegitimacizes the Wikipedia articles, and on a stretch, all wikipedia articles represent wikipedia. I also don't feel they add anything to either article. For example, the quote on the Dhimmi Watch page just basically explains what a dhimmi is. However, why can't an editor just write it into the main paragraph and eliminate any copy issue. You wouldn't open up an encyclopdia, say Brittanica, and see half of an entry quoted from the main source. Pepsidrinka 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, those stupid things should have never been created in the first place, because they really aren't "entries" per se, but just attempts by people to end-run the consensus-agreed "short" Robert Spencer entry (which put an end to endless wrangling over interpretations). Quotations are NOT "POV"; they are merely factual recitations of the opinion of the subject of focus; however, when "an editor just write(s) it in", then everybody has an opinion regarding the POV of the editor -- leading to afore-mentioned endless wrangling.
- I say either nuke the turkeys, or let Spencer have a tiny paragraph. Otherwise, they're just not justified.--Mike18xx 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is the problem with having two headings in the Spencer article, one for Jihad Watch and a subhead for Dhimmi Watch (seeing how Spencer himself creates Dhimmi Watch on the Jihad Watch webspace)? Pepsidrinka 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with it -- as long as it doesn't become an excuse to bloat out the Spencer entry into a corpulent monstrosity again. Alternatively, just replace the whole dhimmi watch and jihad watch entries with redirects.--Mike18xx 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is the problem with having two headings in the Spencer article, one for Jihad Watch and a subhead for Dhimmi Watch (seeing how Spencer himself creates Dhimmi Watch on the Jihad Watch webspace)? Pepsidrinka 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can you check your email?--Pecher 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
be nice
"...al takeyya clique buddies..." Please don't make personnal attacks. It can result in your being blocked. I don't see how you not being able to edit will help make the article better. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd make a lousy dhimmi.--Mike18xx 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you make any more personnal attacks[2], I will block you. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to intrude, but I fail to see how that even qualifies as a personal attack; if it is one, it's about the mildest I've ever seen. Rogue 9 13:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- A "personal attack" is generally something which involves a slur or a lie, not a pure confinement to an accurate description of willfully-indulged in spirit-of-Wiki contrary behavior. E.g., various people are labeled "vandals" all the time at Wiki if they're vandalizing, and it's not considered a "personal attack". Regards this particular case, if what's consciously being committed across the various Islam-relating entries does not qualify as whitewashing and propaganda, then nothing does.--Mike18xx 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Your e-mail addy didn't work
Yeah, no go on the e-mail. Failed delivery. Tried to send one to you through the "e-mail this user" link. If that doesn't work, you can reach me at renegade.paladin[at]gmail.com Rogue 9 13:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wilco.--Mike18xx 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Amy Goodman"? --Mike18xx 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Momentarily confused with another page under attack from a PoV-pusher. The points stands. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
People of the Book changes
The edit summaries are not the talk pages. We can't carry on an discussion through edit summaries. I don't know if you bothered to look at Talk:People of the Book, but I did post to the talk page regarding my changes and I asked you to do the same with your changes. joturner 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- (Mirror of my response:)
- 1. It is "backwards" to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators -- can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of, say, the Antebellum South, which began by listing "choice" quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects? It's utterly bizarre.
- 2. It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as "giving rights" and "protection" when they are doing precisely the contrary. The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash, despite a few throw-a-bone references in the links, and everyone involved in whatever horrific "consensus" (if any) Hell-spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves.--Mike18xx 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. I am at yalto1 at gmail --Yalto 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please learn to abide by policy and contibute to the project in a more constructive manner. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you should learn to count. He made precisely three reverts, and was entirely within the rules. Rogue 9 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is just the latest casualty to "O'Sullivan's Law"; and the double-standards and oily patrician-like attitudes of some admins are blatant. I expect the whole place to be thoroughly dhimmi within a year -- what else is possible from a "tragedy of the commons" train-wreck built on a premise that a jihadist jackasshole stands on equal-footing to a studious researcher? The "fix" is already in with "anonymous editor" and his Islamist buddies Yuber & Co. --Mike18xx 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Monk should not be an admin, as I believe he abuses his tools on people. You should complain on ANI and other places. --Candide, or Optimism 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is just the latest casualty to "O'Sullivan's Law"; and the double-standards and oily patrician-like attitudes of some admins are blatant. I expect the whole place to be thoroughly dhimmi within a year -- what else is possible from a "tragedy of the commons" train-wreck built on a premise that a jihadist jackasshole stands on equal-footing to a studious researcher? The "fix" is already in with "anonymous editor" and his Islamist buddies Yuber & Co. --Mike18xx 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)