Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:59:57 -0000

That's one way of putting it. Of course, I don't recall making any false claims against good faith users, and I certainly recall people like Charles Ainsworth making some blatantly false claims against me. I've been a Wikipedia user since 2004, so I'm not sure if I'm genuinely a "new generation". I do know that most of the criticisms against me have been by justly banned abusers of the project like Jonathan Barber (user JB196). As a paid up card-carrying depressive I do of course get down from time to time, but I have given thousands of hours of my time to the project and made many thousands of edits to articles. The refusal to accept that admins are devoted to the project as well was, in fact, a core part of the problem. And another core part was the refusal of some people to acknowledge that harassment of Wikipedia users is a problem at all. Perhaps they would change their minds if they were the ones being called at home.

I note that the word collegiate is used. Giano, held up as a model of probity, is, in point of fact, one of the least collegiate people on the project. Most of his work is done one article at a time, with mostly him doing the work. He, like me, is prone to being rude, bullheaded and obnoxious. Neither of us is perfect, but there is no doubt in my mind of his commitment to the project. He, on the other hand, thinks I should be hounded out. This is emblematic of this particular teapot tempest: admins are evil, "contributors" are being done down. Only, most admins are contributors too. And if I was not committed to Wikipedia I hardly think I'd have put up with the kind of shit that's been sent my way over the last couple of years, since well before I was an admin, almost all of it from people who Wikipedia needs slightly less than it needs to be sued by a disgruntled article subject. The first time I was savaged by a website for a Wikipedia action it was for removing defamatory and false text from an article on a living individual, written by a tiny group of people who consider the individual concerned to be some kind of ogre. I was far less hard on them than others were, and they are all now banned from the project as being constitutionally unable to be anywhere close to neutral.

Like it or not, Wikipedia is now a big target for people pushing an agenda. The old days when nobody cared, we could take time to fix things, and every newcomer was probably an OK guy at heart, are past. Every single article on a politician, fringe science subject, controversial individual, group, band or anything else that inspires strong passions, is at risk of being hijacked by zealots. And many of these zealots have to be shown the door, which was always the case. There are more articles, the profile is higher, there are more zealots. If you feel the existing admins are doing a poor job of dealing with them, then you are free to stand for adminship - it's no big deal. The more the merrier.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Michael Richter — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:19:18 -0000

Wikipedia is run by people. Unfortunately it is now run by a new generation of people like Guy Chapman. Most of the collegiate, enthusiastic, intelligent and dilligent people have either been bullied away or have left in disgust.

Guy Chapman was himself one of the guilty parties at the center of this storm. He has no credibility and became a target of critics due to his poor attitude and relentless false claims against good faith users. He quit the site a number of times due to "stress" on the advice of senior contributors, but does not seem to be able to heed their warnings, returning each time. What we are seeing is someone with problems related to online addiction, these personality difficulties combined with a misuse of power are at the root of what is bringing the site down. For his own sake and everyone else's, he should be strongly urged to remove himself from the Wikipedia community before it is too late.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:40:38 -0000

So leave.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

dtobias — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:52:15 -0000

Soylent Green is.... Wikipedia!

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Zara — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:36:09 -0000

Wikipedia is pure trash. It is a crazy secret society that is being presented as an encyclopedia. It is controlled by a mob of ignorant and lifeless creatures, most of whom have no knowledge of the subjects theyve chosen to hijack, as is expected. for who has time to obsessively edit and distort particular articles but one with an unhealthy fixation of the subjects of such articles? if one were interested in knowledge and not propaganda, one would not hawk but research. Then you have the socially inept minions who are looking for approval and acceptance, these creatures are employed to revert, revert..they even have "to do lists" : keep an eye on this article, revert this article automatically. Jimmy Wales, no one is buying it. Wikipedia is worthless, it is a cult of ignorance, filthy Fascist.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:08:49 -0000

I love being a member of the cabal. As soon as I find out who the other members are I can get start getting my own way on Wikipedia :-)

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:07:20 -0000

Dan, a list devoted to discussion of stalking *has* to be private.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/The_Durova...

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Angelo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:10:30 -0000

The weirder Wikipedia's fabricated interpretations of reality become, the worse Wikipedia's reputation will be. It is not like the rest of the world actually shares these views, as much as they, and apparently you too, would like it to.

And looking at the last twelve months, it seems it doesn't take much more to finally push Wikipedia over the edge of being classified as "group of total lunatics".

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Kelly Martin — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:05:01 -0000

Guy Chapman's comments, above, are illustrative of the typical mentality of the Wikipedia cabalist. (He is, of course, one of the worst of them, he who has left Wikipedia at least four times now, and whose user page says that he's left, and yet he continues to actively administer the site as well as participate in controlling it through the cabal he is very much a member of.) I would know; I'm a former cabalist myself, and just as ex-Scientologists make the most ardent critics of Scientology, ex-Wikipedians make the most ardent critics of Wikipedia.

I draw the cult parallel intentionally: Wikipedia has many of the hallmarks of a cult. Anybody who critically observes a Jimbo lovebombing session, on IRC or in person, will quickly see what I mean.

Somewhere (I forget where) I recently read someone who described Wikipedia as the latest in a long stream of failed utopian enterprises. Sad, but true. Godwin is going to lose his bet.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:10:45 -0000

Er, no, it's more that the people who planted the Register piece are simply wrong. I am on the list, I know exactly what went on on the list, and they are wrong, and they have been told it numerous times. It really is as simple as that.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:00:15 -0000

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Next case.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

dtobias — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:00:06 -0000

Now webcomics are getting into the act too:
http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2007/12/climbi...

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Dan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:37:11 -0000

An ironic attitude from somebody who posts messages by the dozen on the wiki-en-l mailing list, on the same sorts of topics.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Dan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:33:32 -0000

Your arrogance seems to have no bounds; those who disagree with you can never be considered to have any sort of valid point, but are always mistaken if not malicious, even when they're in the majority. This attitude of yours has probably driven away many more positive contributors than the "enemies" you're attacking.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Dan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:30:40 -0000

Very politicianly of you, always picking the word with more of a "positive spin" where necessary to make your point. "Secret"/"Private", "Ban"/"Block", "Sockpuppetry"/"changing accounts due to harassment", "Tomayto"/"Tomahto"... which one to use depends on whether it's describing your friends or your enemies.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:18:50 -0000

Except it wasn't secret, just private, and its existence was necessary to fulfil a function that cannot be fulfilled by any less private forum. Oversight is also necessary; we really do not need to leave Andrew Morrow's addition of people's addresses and telephone numbers in article history, for example.

!! was not "banned" he was blocked, briefly, due to a gross error of judgement on the part of one admin. End of story.

The fatuous claim of sockpuppetry against SV should also not go unchallenged; over two years ago she considered changing accounts due to harassment but finally decided nto to. Big fat hairy deal. If you want to see sockpuppetry, see user JB196. Or Jon Awbrey. Or WordBomb. Yet strangely it is these people's criticism of Wikipedia that is taken at face value, while the opinions of long-standing members of the Wikipedia community counts for nothing.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:13:34 -0000

And a very tiny proportion of it might not actually be gross misrepresentation or complete bollocks :-)

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:12:28 -0000

That has no relevance. It doesn't matter how many people misunderstood or misrepresented what went on, there was no need for Giano to post the email, he did it for entertainment not out of principle, and he should not have done so.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

mathewi — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:34:01 -0000

Thanks, Seth. I'll take a look.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:33:15 -0000

My column is available now:

"Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/0...

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:31:24 -0000

My column is available now:

<a target="guardian"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia

<a target="guardian"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia">Inside,
Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Dan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:02:49 -0000

More info and discussion on Wikipedia's troubles can be found at these sites:

Kelly Martin's blog: http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/
Casey Abell's blog: http://wikipediafunnies.blogspot.com/
Wikipedia Review: http://www.wikipediareview.com/

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Dan — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:10:56 -0000

He's also received (at last look) 221 votes in favor of his ArbCom candidacy, which is more than the 168 opposed. The majority is certainly not always right, but the existence of so many Wikipedians in good standing who not only don't favor banning him but want him to be elected to high office within Wikipedia means that your own harsh opinion is not universally shared.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

PK — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:34:08 -0000

You know, if it was just this one thing, you'd be right. But it's not. Wikipedia is rife with arbitrary, capricious behavior that consistently bullies editors and enforces a bizarre bureaucracy. What it has become is everything it says it is not. You seem to have forgotten or did not RTFA, because this is not just about questionable mailing list on a private server, but also about the highly questionable banning of 'bang bang', when other 'elite members' such as slimvirgin, gets a pass at the far more serious crime of sockpuppetry which she was caught at red-handed.

The secret mailing list is just a symptom of a much larger issue of transparency, a concept that completely escapes Jimbo Wales when he implemented the 'oversight' function. One can only guess hopw far this goes, so the idea of a 'conspiracy' is not as far-fetched as you seem to be ignorantly dismissing out of hand.

Re: News flash: Wikipedia is run by people!

Guy Chapman — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:00:36 -0000

Still flogging the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay, I see.