Comments on: Wikitruth, wikidare, wikikiss...

Wikitruth, wikidare, wikikiss...

PeterMcDermott — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 04:57:47 -0800

What is a wikipedian? Every so often a Wikipedian comes to their senses, sees a problem with the way things are operating, and tries to do something about it. Tired of seeing articles carelessly deleted, censored, and then cherry picked as to what is "encyclopedic enough", several Wikipedia members formed "Wikipedians against censorship".

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:09:26 -0800

What is a wikipedian? Round here we call 'em wikipedophiles.

By: unSane

unSane — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:14:52 -0800

The Wiki zealots are really fucking tiring. Reading the 'censored' articles they host is enough to drain away your will to live.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:15:20 -0800

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can become irrationally angry about.

By: Wolof

Wolof — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:24:08 -0800

At last the truth may be known!

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:29:24 -0800

The Wiki zealots are really fucking tiring. I disagree. I think zealots can provide hours of endless entertainment and amusement -- provided you don't have to deal with them in any meaningful way. Then, I grant you, they become really fucking tiring.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:56:36 -0800

Trying to find novel ways to be a jaded metafiltarian is exhausting. The competition to get in the first "meh" or snark is fierce and will no doubt soon involve steroids, balco, genetic engineering and ben johnson's coach. Reopening the purportedly open process is a good thing because it will help people understand what is where and how and why. Now if only we had something similar here so we could understand responses in threads where comments have been deleted.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:59:11 -0800

The links are dead. Now I'll never know the truth.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:24:03 -0800

In the Wiki, we call these kinds of people inclusionists. It's not censorship, it's a result of the compromise between being an indiscriminate collection of information and completeness. I think having a non-WP location for valid information that's not considered "encyclopedic enough" for Wikipedia is a fine thing, but the name is a bit over-the-top. Since anyone can contribute and anyone can participate in AFD (although non-contributors' opinions carry less weight there), "censorship" is a word that doesn't feel right. When the community decides that a certain article doesn't belong, it's called "sticking to the Vision".

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:15:48 -0800

What is a wikipedian? ...metafiltarian... Wikipedians are the people from the kingdom of Pedantia in "Gulliver's Travels". Metafiltarians were the suicide cult who believed that UFO's hidden behind a comet would capture their departing souls.

By: public

public — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:17:12 -0800

When YTMND does a better job than Wikipedia, you know things aren't working quite right.

By: philsom

philsom — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:26:22 -0800

worst thing is finding something about you that is incorrect on Wikipedia and then not being able to edit it, as editing your own entry is very faux paux

By: interrobang

interrobang — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:31:49 -0800

That's the most... sensitive ytmnd I've ever seen... *snif*

By: Smart Dalek

Smart Dalek — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:04:07 -0800

Metafiltarians were the suicide cult who believed that UFO's hidden behind a comet would capture their departing souls. No, No, NO! Metafilterians are the people with blue, yellow, and white patches sewn onto their clothing who've accepted Matt Wholelottanothingforyai as their savior.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:12:00 -0800

You know, I actually think Wikipedia works quite well. You'd never know taht from all the coverage it gets though.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:13:39 -0800

Hmm... It seems from teh links that censorship is actually a GOOD thing, and gets rid of a lot of shit. Who knew?

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:16:17 -0800

You know, I actually think Wikipedia works quite well. You'd never know taht from all the coverage it gets though. Kinda like the United States.

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:40:11 -0800

What is a Wikipedian? Apparently "No input file specified." Now, what can change the nature of a man?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:59:58 -0800

It seems from teh links that censorship is actually a GOOD thing, and gets rid of a lot of shit. Deletionist! worst thing is finding something about you that is incorrect on Wikipedia and then not being able to edit it, as editing your own entry is very faux paux Actually, I feel it would have been better if Siegenthaler, for example, had fixed his own entry. The main problem with editors working on articles about themselves is verifiability and neutral point of view. But the community has been circling the wagons on this one and there's now a specific guideline recommending against it. Dealing with articles about yourself (a newer guideline page, none of it older than December 2005) seems to contradict If Wikipedia already has an article about you (which has been around since 2003). Generally, though, it's perfectly acceptable to bring issues up on the Talk page even if you are the subject (as long as you're ready to accept that the issue may not be resolved 100% to your liking).

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:24:33 -0800

Plutor: When the community decides that a certain article doesn't belong, it's called "sticking to the Vision". But what community? And whose vision? One answer: "Community" is a big, hairy character of a word, travelling with a lot of very old baggage that has very weak clasps. It's actually been quite blind these many years, now, though, like Mister Magoo, it doesn't know it and thinks its vision is as good as ever.

By: skallas

skallas — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:19:18 -0800

Why is it wikitruth.info? Are they saying the wikipedia is full of lies. Sounds like they should have gotten minoreditorialdecisionsonlypeoplewhoeditwikipediamightgiveashitabout.com "Defenders of the truth" "The atrocities have gone on long enough." Err, I visited because Jimbo Whales once let his dog crap on my lawn but I stayed for the hyperbole. Christ, get a life.

By: sparkletone

sparkletone — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:19:48 -0800

What is a wikipedian? The word "wikipedian" made me think of Gilbert & Sullivan. However, It turns out I'm not smart enough, or well-versed enough in Wikipedia culture to do a parody about them. By way of apology, I offer this fragment of one one about MeFi: I am the very model of a modern MeFi-tarian I've commented on many threads both cultured, and barbarian I've read the posting guidelines, and I bookmark threads historical From macrame to Caraboo, in order categorical

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:21:37 -0800

worst thing is finding something about you that is incorrect on Wikipedia and then not being able to edit it, as editing your own entry is very faux paux You can correct factual items like your birthday or something equally non-controversial. I've done it to my article. If your edits aren't controversial it's not a big deal.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:30:43 -0800

lodurr: "But what community? And whose vision?" The community would be the people who participate in AFD (and recently, also prod). The Vision would be the vast set of laboriously discussed and tweaked set of policies and guidelines. Wikipedia only seems like it flies by the seat of its (massive) collective pants.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:33:49 -0800

In a less literal sense, some people might argure that the community would also include the people who choose not to participate in AFD or prod, plus the people who implicitly approve of the policies and guidelines by either using or contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not certain if I'd argue that, myself.

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:00:51 -0800

Agree with what jessamyn said about editing your own article. I've been dealing with spam, vandalism, and self-promotion on Wikipedia for a year or so now. Some people believe it's their right to edit Wikipedia articles about them to portray themselves in the best light possible, or to add their own webpage to the external links on all the related topics, or to wholesale remove valid criticisms. In other cases, someone will come along with a belief that they are the world's foremost expert on a topic and will expound their viewpoint in very biased ways and then freak right out when people call them on it. I do strongly believe in the value of Wikipedia...I don't expect any article to be 100% factual or truthful or unbiased. But I've certainly found more useful info on pages there than in most places on the internet.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:04:21 -0800

I thought the transcript of this speech by Jason Scott explains a lot of the wikipedia controversies fairly well. There are much deeper issues than the petty vandalism of pages that will come along that may make a lot of people question the stated goals and administration of wikipedia. Not in a "this is a conspiracy"-way, but in a "this doesn't work like we thought it would"-way.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:23:00 -0800

Some people really need to get a life.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:38:00 -0800

Hmm... the Jack Thomson article isn't gone as "wikitruth" implies, and actually seems a lot stronger due to wikipedias actions.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:58:25 -0800

Plutor: My point would be that the community is not the contributor, and the vision "of the community" is not the contributor's vision. You could look at it as a forest:trees kind of thing, at a simplistic level. People aren't likely to see themselves in the "actions" or "visions" "of the community."

By: lodurr

lodurr — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:00:07 -0800

Mikeh: as discussed previously

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:40:04 -0800

So, if I go and add articles to Wikitruth.info, I can assume they won't ever be deleted from there or face censorship? Cool!

By: Tlogmer

Tlogmer — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:02:28 -0800

You can't add anything; it's not publicly editable. "this doesn't work like we thought it would" Well, duh. Scott's speech was great, but that arguent pissed me off. Wikipedia was founded as a silly side project, not a utopian dream; nobody anticipated it being a hundredth the size it is.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:35:39 -0800

You can't add anything; it's not publicly editable. Comedy gold!

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:22:22 -0800

I do strongly believe in the value of Wikipedia. Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about it. However, I found the link interesting as an introduction to the various arguments and warring factions that goes on behind the scenes in bringing Wikipedia to us. I think the only other way to learn that stuff would be to immerse oneself in the morass that is wikiediting, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to go there.

By: 0bvious

0bvious — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:41:33 -0800

Wikipedia is more than a communal encyclopedia. It's the reflective surface the internet uses to perceive itself. Wikipedia is transcendant, it is hyperreal. Wikipedia is a catalyst for epistemological debate, and long may it continue to be so.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:17:45 -0800

5% of people in an online community like to spend 90% of their time talking about 2% of its problems. The only notable thing is that they have an uncanny way of getting attention.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:00:04 -0800

5% of people in an online community like to spend 90% of their time talking about 2% of its problems. The only notable thing is that they have an uncanny way of getting attention. ...Metatalk! [/matthewchenisspamming]

By: Plutor

Plutor — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:51:19 -0800

lodurr: "You could look at it as a forest:trees kind of thing, at a simplistic level. People aren't likely to see themselves in the "actions" or "visions" "of the community."" Just because someone doesn't identify themselves as a part of a larger social structure doesn't make it untrue. Despite the fact that everyone on Metafilter has their own ideas for what's a "good link" or what's "valuable discussion" or even what should happen to deleted posts and comments (or if it should ever happen at all), there's still a structured community here. Even more so at Wikipedia, since it's so strongly codified. I think that what I'm trying to say is that the forest/trees dichotomy is inherently false. The forest is the trees. Er, maybe.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:58:05 -0800

Well, no -- the forest is not the trees. The forest is not even the aggregation or agglomeration of the trees. They are different kinds of things. Not that I disagree with your immediate response. But the fact that people do not identify themselves as part of the social structure is, nevertheless, extremely significant. For example, Martin Niemoller was part of the social structure that could be shorthanded as "Nazi Germany." That's a fact. Now, what does that fact mean? Similar fact: You, Jason Scott, and the folks over at "Wikitruth" are all part of the social structure that could be shorthanded as "Wikipedia". What does that fact mean? My point is that there isn't any clear relationship -- and may not be any identifiable relationship at all -- between what people think they're participating in and what they're actually participating in.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:02:49 -0800

... I realize I didn't explain my first comment. The forest is not the trees in a sense much like that in which a car is not a pile of car parts. That's relevant because there are at least two important "group-things" that are "Wikipedia": The Wikipedia that people think exists -- the one that exists in some person or persons mind(s) (which is most likely not one thing, but i won't go there right now) -- and the one that exists as a social fact.