→Press mentions: Again, it isn't what the W?F spends on that is likely to kill Wikipedia. It is the ever-increasing spending and the inevitability that donations will not increase every year forever. |
Mr Happy Shoes (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
:::In the linked comment Katherine Maher makes the same error: literally nobody is calling for lowering the wages of software developers. Absolutely nothing in [[WP:CANCER]] suggests such a thing. If anyone had bothered to ask me I would have pointed them to studies that show that a smaller number of higher paid and more productive software developers typically create better software. (You have to work hard to identify the really productive developers -- just spending more money doesn't get you there -- but once you do you have to pay them what they are worth.) |
:::In the linked comment Katherine Maher makes the same error: literally nobody is calling for lowering the wages of software developers. Absolutely nothing in [[WP:CANCER]] suggests such a thing. If anyone had bothered to ask me I would have pointed them to studies that show that a smaller number of higher paid and more productive software developers typically create better software. (You have to work hard to identify the really productive developers -- just spending more money doesn't get you there -- but once you do you have to pay them what they are worth.) |
||
:::Again, it isn't what the W?F spends on that is likely to kill Wikipedia. It is the ever-increasing spending and the inevitability that donations will not increase every year forever. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon#top|talk]]) 13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC) |
:::Again, it isn't what the W?F spends on that is likely to kill Wikipedia. It is the ever-increasing spending and the inevitability that donations will not increase every year forever. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon#top|talk]]) 13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Your recent accusations against the British tabloid press == |
|||
Regarding this.... |
|||
:"British tabloids do produce false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature. We have caught them doing it ...... British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it. |
|||
I would be interested to know if you had any proof to back these extraordinary accusations up. Other than the Amanda Knox incident, which, as I am sure you know, was a story that was online for all of two minutes, an obvious mistake, admitted and corrected as such. If this is indeed your only proof for these serious accusations, if this is all you meant by "we have caught them doing it", I am surprised more people haven't yet caught onto the lies that underpin Wikipedia's apparently deeply held prejudices against the tabloid media. |
|||
As it stands, and maybe you really don't care, but this prejudice has actually produced a situation where the future career and indeed life of a man like Marek Kukula, is actually left to the tabloids to control. There are only two useful Google results for anyone wanting to know anything about |
|||
this man'a life - an obviously incomplete (based on the observable universe) Wikipedia biography, and these two tabloid reports which go some say to completing it. |
|||
People have no choice but to read them together, because there is no other reasonable explanation, in this context in these circumstances, for why anyone should assume they are inaccurate. The outcome of which, of course, in extremis, is to actually believe he really is still the Pubic Astronomer. I, as a Wikipedia editor, have it in my power to make that a more prominently known fact, an actual Google data box / Siri voice query reality, according to Wikipedia. |
|||
And it is perhaps ironic that in doing so, I would have the editor's utmost reliance on reliable sources, to back me up in fuelling that perversity of a paradox. So Wikipedia is perhaps lucky that at least some here are capable of seeing the bigger picture, and making wiser editorial choices. Should I feel shame in admitting those choices were informed by the tabloid press? Maybe you think so. I don't. |
|||
It is Wikipedia's choice, indeed, it is evidently your deliberate choice as one of the many who apparently want to hold this prejudice at any cost, to deny Wikipedia readers the chance to read about this conviction in a neutral way, where specific legal terms can be understood, risks can be properly balanced, explanations and events can be put in context, without readers being influenced by emotive tabloid language like "bile" and "disturbing". To rely only on those tabloids as proof that if anyone ever does suspect it has simply been made it up, it wasn't by some random Wikipedia nobody. |
|||
Murdoch loves it when people like you overstate the risks of tabloid journalism to the point of utter absurdity, out of nothing but naked prejudice. It keeps him in the newspaper business. It allows him to augment his baser interests with a profit centre based on employing journalists who do the mundane work of public interest court reporting, work that is apparently of no interest to the BBC or The Guardian, probably because there is no profit for them in learning that the world is often a pretty dark place. Not unlike the void of space. |
|||
Not the parts of them that deal in Lifestyle/Culture/Pop Science anyway. Gotta keep it light, I guess, in more ways than one. The man was of course never considered of any interest to the News departments of those esteemed outlets, before or after his conviction, which perhaps should have factored more into Wikipedia's fateful decision to keep his now very misleading "biography". |
|||
Is it salacious, ittitilating even, to learn that this man, with this role, had committed these crimes, and indeed before he had even got that role? I don't think so. I think others not afflicted by this prejudice, would also agree. Emotive, yes, but reliable sources do emotion aplenty, unless CNN has suddenly been downgraded too. Seems OK for Wikipedia. |
|||
I can't ever know why the BBC or The Guardian chose not to bookend their efforts to profile this man, but to repeat, it really might have something more to so with the fact they are news sites, not encyclopedias, rather than any painfully concocted tabloid/broadhseet distinction. Readers understand how news sites work. Readers perhaps won't understand the logic of an encyclopedia choosing to omit pertinent information like this, especially if it is done based only on a clearly harmful prejudice. |
|||
Perhaps you have good reasons for this stance, a non-prejudicial reason. Perhaps that includes better proof for the serious accusations you made above which were evidently an answer to my request for context specific details that might better underpin this baffling decision. And then again, perhaps it does not. One can only ask. [[User:Mr Happy Shoes|Mr Happy Shoes]] ([[User talk:Mr Happy Shoes|talk]]) 13:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:02, 8 June 2021
This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
|
"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER
New discussion
Only 993,168,481 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 993,168,481 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon
--Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App
Calvin discovers Wikipedia
- "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon
Page views
Page views for this talk page over the last five years |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Page views for this talk page over the last six months |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
--Guy Macon
User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house --Guy Macon
- I can see why this has not been added yet; it does not have an "...in popular culture" section! For shame. --IanOsgood (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."
Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon
Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89–87."[1]
--Guy Macon
Reasoning
- "Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired: for, in the course of things, men always grow vicious, before they become unbelievers..." --Jonathan Swift ( 1721)[2] [3]
- In modern language that would be
- "You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into. They will viciously attack you instead of abandoning their beliefs".
- --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least they have their priorities straight!
- A seaside town in Japan has raised eyebrows after it used funding from an emergency Covid-19 relief grant to build a giant statue of a squid. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
GM
I saw this comment, your expertise is unquestionable, although, I want to know, is there something strange about the editor you observed that I failed to see. Celestina007 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- (...Looks at the user's contributions closely...) On second thought, probably not. I didn't see anything else that was promotional. The areas the user edits in are so completely outside of anything I know anything about that I can't tell whether they are bade or good, but nobody seems to be complaining. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Press mentions
Hey, you've got a couple of press mentions in the Spanish and Brazilian press:
- Wikipedia cuenta con 300 millones de dólares y ha roto sus previsiones de donaciones… pero te sigue pidiendo que dones (Genbeta)
- Wikipedia tem 300 milhões de dólares em caixa e continua pedindo doaçõesWikipedia tem 300 milhões de dólares em caixa e continua pedindo doações (SempreUpdate)
Cheers, --Andreas JN466 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Google translate:
- "Already in 2016, a Wikipedia editor named Guy Macon published a report in which he warned that the viability of the project was in danger ... due to the pace of the foundation's expenses and, above all, because spending priorities were not the correct ones." (The Spanish and Portuguese translations are pretty much the same).
- Interesting how they came to that conclusion about spending priorities despite the fact that it I was very clear that in my opinion it is the spending increases that are likely to kill Wikipedia, not the spending priorities. Actually, the fact that they are pouring money down rat-holes strengthens my argument. If the W?F was spending way too much but spending it doing things that are worth doing it would be harder to get public support for having the W?F grow up, put on their big-boy pants, and stick to a budget. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have you ever heard the story of the admiral's yacht? According to the story, whenever someone proposes a reduction in military spending, the military immediately cuts the budget by not buying bullets or buying less food for the troops, but they never touch the admiral's yacht or the general's ski vacations in the Swiss Alps.
- Whether or not the story is true in the case of the actual military, in certainly is in the case of the WMF. We keep hearing about maybe spending less on redundant datacenters or on fixing bugs, but we never discuss the Wikimanias, the HQ located in the second most expensive city on earth, or hiring 300 people to do the exact same job that 50 people were doing before.
- In the linked comment Katherine Maher makes the same error: literally nobody is calling for lowering the wages of software developers. Absolutely nothing in WP:CANCER suggests such a thing. If anyone had bothered to ask me I would have pointed them to studies that show that a smaller number of higher paid and more productive software developers typically create better software. (You have to work hard to identify the really productive developers -- just spending more money doesn't get you there -- but once you do you have to pay them what they are worth.)
- Again, it isn't what the W?F spends on that is likely to kill Wikipedia. It is the ever-increasing spending and the inevitability that donations will not increase every year forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Your recent accusations against the British tabloid press
Regarding this....
- "British tabloids do produce false reports about actual criminal convictions of a serious nature. We have caught them doing it ...... British tabloids do fabricate actual quotes from judges, prosecutors and lawyers. We have caught them doing it.
I would be interested to know if you had any proof to back these extraordinary accusations up. Other than the Amanda Knox incident, which, as I am sure you know, was a story that was online for all of two minutes, an obvious mistake, admitted and corrected as such. If this is indeed your only proof for these serious accusations, if this is all you meant by "we have caught them doing it", I am surprised more people haven't yet caught onto the lies that underpin Wikipedia's apparently deeply held prejudices against the tabloid media.
As it stands, and maybe you really don't care, but this prejudice has actually produced a situation where the future career and indeed life of a man like Marek Kukula, is actually left to the tabloids to control. There are only two useful Google results for anyone wanting to know anything about this man'a life - an obviously incomplete (based on the observable universe) Wikipedia biography, and these two tabloid reports which go some say to completing it.
People have no choice but to read them together, because there is no other reasonable explanation, in this context in these circumstances, for why anyone should assume they are inaccurate. The outcome of which, of course, in extremis, is to actually believe he really is still the Pubic Astronomer. I, as a Wikipedia editor, have it in my power to make that a more prominently known fact, an actual Google data box / Siri voice query reality, according to Wikipedia.
And it is perhaps ironic that in doing so, I would have the editor's utmost reliance on reliable sources, to back me up in fuelling that perversity of a paradox. So Wikipedia is perhaps lucky that at least some here are capable of seeing the bigger picture, and making wiser editorial choices. Should I feel shame in admitting those choices were informed by the tabloid press? Maybe you think so. I don't.
It is Wikipedia's choice, indeed, it is evidently your deliberate choice as one of the many who apparently want to hold this prejudice at any cost, to deny Wikipedia readers the chance to read about this conviction in a neutral way, where specific legal terms can be understood, risks can be properly balanced, explanations and events can be put in context, without readers being influenced by emotive tabloid language like "bile" and "disturbing". To rely only on those tabloids as proof that if anyone ever does suspect it has simply been made it up, it wasn't by some random Wikipedia nobody.
Murdoch loves it when people like you overstate the risks of tabloid journalism to the point of utter absurdity, out of nothing but naked prejudice. It keeps him in the newspaper business. It allows him to augment his baser interests with a profit centre based on employing journalists who do the mundane work of public interest court reporting, work that is apparently of no interest to the BBC or The Guardian, probably because there is no profit for them in learning that the world is often a pretty dark place. Not unlike the void of space.
Not the parts of them that deal in Lifestyle/Culture/Pop Science anyway. Gotta keep it light, I guess, in more ways than one. The man was of course never considered of any interest to the News departments of those esteemed outlets, before or after his conviction, which perhaps should have factored more into Wikipedia's fateful decision to keep his now very misleading "biography".
Is it salacious, ittitilating even, to learn that this man, with this role, had committed these crimes, and indeed before he had even got that role? I don't think so. I think others not afflicted by this prejudice, would also agree. Emotive, yes, but reliable sources do emotion aplenty, unless CNN has suddenly been downgraded too. Seems OK for Wikipedia.
I can't ever know why the BBC or The Guardian chose not to bookend their efforts to profile this man, but to repeat, it really might have something more to so with the fact they are news sites, not encyclopedias, rather than any painfully concocted tabloid/broadhseet distinction. Readers understand how news sites work. Readers perhaps won't understand the logic of an encyclopedia choosing to omit pertinent information like this, especially if it is done based only on a clearly harmful prejudice.
Perhaps you have good reasons for this stance, a non-prejudicial reason. Perhaps that includes better proof for the serious accusations you made above which were evidently an answer to my request for context specific details that might better underpin this baffling decision. And then again, perhaps it does not. One can only ask. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)