Forgot your password?

+ - The latest Wikipedia code-word for "dysfunction" is "Superprotection" 3

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As if the problems brought up during the recent 2014 Wikimania conference weren't enough, now Wikipedia is having an outright revolt by its editor and administrator community, especially on the German-language Wikipedia. A new Wikipediocracy blog post goes into some detail on the story. The WMF, currently awash in cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the community, and they have repeatedly responded very negatively. This time, however, WMF Deputy Director Erik Moeller had the bright idea to create a new level of page protection to prevent the new software from being disabled. "Superprotection" has resulted in an outright revolt on German Wikipedia and subsequent coverage in the German press, plus demands that Moeller, one of Wikipedia's oldest insiders, be removed from his job. And one English Wikipedia insider started a petition demanding the removal of "superprotection"."

Comment: Re:Copyright dispute with Wikipedia (Score 1) 113

by metasonix (#47657291) Attached to: Wikipedia Gets Critical Reception from UK Press at Wikimania 2014
>Personally, I think for 90% of the articles, Wales does a decent job as the final gatekeeper,

Which only indicates that you haven't looked at the actual content of Wikipedia very closely. I have. Yes, there are many good, usable articles on it. There are also millions of "junk" articles, thousands of hoaxes, tens of thousands of people being defamed in their biographies, hundreds of thousands of people glorifying themselves by writing their own bios (against Jimbo's own rule), and various other abuses. Some are repaired quickly, some sit there for years. And there's no way to tell if an article is valid or not, except by checking the references very carefully (which few people do anyway--Wikipedia is a lazy man's reference). Wales does no "gatekeeping" at all, he is purely a figurehead at this point.

What I really don't get: why do people worship him? He's one of the most inadequate leaders of a major online movement I've ever seen.

+ - Jimmy Wales Embarrasses Himself at Wikimania

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "On Sunday the 2014 Wikimania conference in London closed. Wikimania is the major annual event for Wikipedia editors, insiders and WMF employees to meet face-to-face, give presentations and submit papers. Usually they are full of "Wiki-Love" and good feelings; but this year, as the Wikipediocracy blog summarized, Wikipedia and its "god-king" Jimmy Wales came under considerable fire from the UK media — a very unusual occurrence. And much of it was direct criticism of Wales himself, including a very hostile interview by BBC journalist James O'Brien, who had been repeatedly defamed in his Wikipedia biography by persons unknown."

Comment: Not only are there loads of hoaxes on Wikipedia... (Score 2) 189

by metasonix (#47571423) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax one, not even the Wikipedians, has any idea how many there are. No one can even hazard a decent guess, although after 3+ years of heavy study of English Wikipedia and the "people" who run it, I can state with reasonable certainty that there are thousands of hoaxes on it at any given time. They tend to be subtle bits of misinformation, difficult to find and often lasting for many years.

+ - "I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax" 5

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "The Daily Dot's EJ Dickson reports how she accidentally discovered that a hoax factoid she added over five years ago as a stoned sophomore to the Wikipedia article on “Amelia Bedelia, the protagonist of the eponymous children’s book series about a ‘literal-minded housekeeper’ who misunderstands her employer’s orders”, had not just remained on Wikipedia all this time, but come to be cited by a Taiwanese English professor, in “innumerable blog posts and book reports”, as well as a book on Jews and Jesus. It's a cautionary tale about the fundamental unreliability of Wikipedia. And as Wikipedia ages, more and more such stories are coming to light."

Comment: Not only are there loads of hoaxes on Wikipedia... (Score 1) 5

by metasonix (#47564075) Attached to: "I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax" one, not even the Wikipedians, has any idea how many there are. No one can even hazard a decent guess, although after 3+ years of heavy study of English Wikipedia and the "people" who run it, I can state with reasonable certainty that there are thousands of hoaxes on it at any given time. They tend to be subtle bits of misinformation, difficult to find and often lasting for many years.

Comment: this is only a small sample (Score 1) 2

by metasonix (#47499241) Attached to: Pranks, hoaxes, manipulation: Virtual Unreality on Wikipedia
I've estimated that English Wikipedia contains thousands of hoaxes at any given time. Some of them are removed quickly as "vandalism", some of them last for many years. It is simply not possible to make accurate studies of this situation, because the hoaxes are ever-changing, old ones removed while new ones are added.

Part of the perverse subculture of Wikipedia is the absolute, near-religious certainty that Wikipedia does not contain false or malicious information, because it "simply isn't possible". This is the dark and slimy legacy of Jimbo Wales and his early supporters. By and large a very dishonest group. They are simply pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong, or that they ever make mistakes.

+ - Pranks, hoaxes, manipulation: Virtual Unreality on Wikipedia-> 2

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "Kids confess on Reddit that in order to wind up a classmate named Azid, they added his name to the Wikipedia article on Chicken Korma. Two years on, and Azid is established online as an alternative name of the dish. A prankster twice changes the name of the inventor of the hair straightener, and both names are now widely credited with the invention online. Another kid writes in Wikipedia that coatis are also called Brazilian aardvarks, and incredibly, the name catches on in newspapers, even a university press book. Governments around the world seek to control Wikipedia content through anonymous contributions. Misinformation and propaganda on Wikipedia spread like a virus into other publications: how pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia, and indeed the fabric of consensual reality."
Link to Original Source

+ - Media Viewer: yet another Wikipedia scandal in the making 3

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As reported on Wikipediocracy today, the Wikimedia Foundation's software developers created a new "Media Viewer" feature to show high-resolution Wikipedia images in a pop-up window. It worked, but had many problems. Result: "One month after implementation, volunteer administrator Pete Forsyth unceremoniously switched the new feature off, only to find his change reverted by none other than the Wikimedia Foundation’s Deputy Director and VP of Engineering and Product Development, Erik Möller, who threatened to remove Forsyth’s administrative privileges. Möller in turn has now been hauled in front of Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, accused of overstepping his authority." This is roughly similar to a group of volunteer police cadets attempting to remove their chief of police, for changing department policy. The story is bizarre, and it perfectly underscores the dysfunctional and twisted internal culture of Wikipedia."

Comment: If it is true, is it defamation? (Score 2) 268

by metasonix (#47313187) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit
Well, well, well, I don't suppose you're really Lee "Camembert" Pilich, one of Wikipedia's earliest administrators and arbitrators, are you?

If so, why did you more-or-less give up on Wikipedia in 2010? Did you finally realize that Jimbo Wales wasn't an "Internet Hero" or some bullshit like that, and that he had installed some very dishonest people in the admin ranks, and thence at the WMF? When did it dawn upon you that Wikipedia was declining?

+ - Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation suit->

Submitted by Andreas Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe (2591067) writes "Businessman, philanthropist and musician Yank Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation are suing four Wikipedia editors for defamation, claiming they have maliciously conspired to keep Barry's Wikipedia biography unduly negative. The Daily Dot article includes a copy of the legal brief and quotes Barry as saying, “My page was so ridiculously false and made me sound like a terrible person and people believed it causing deals to fall through. I finally had enough.”"
Link to Original Source

+ - A Wikipedia content-abuse story -- only with real-world violence 1

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "Once again, the Wikipediocracy website has uncovered a substantial abuse of the truth on Wikipedia. Like the "Qworty" debacle that ran in the news media last year, this post describes people who are deliberately inserting misinformation and attacking anyone who criticizes them for it. Unlike Qworty, it involves two editors — one is simply not very competent, the other (called only "Henry" here, possibly for fear of the author's safety) is not only protecting her, he is also posting his own phony articles and outright lies on Wikipedia. By the way, he spent years in prison for beating a woman with a pool cue."

Comment: Re:The "threat" (Score 1) 55

1) No, I am not Oppong. I did partly assist him with the publication of his Wikipediocracy article. That is all.

2) I don't read German and so am not privy to much of what happens on de-WP. But Wikipediocracy has a couple of regulars who follow de-WP, and they tell us that even though it is better run overall than en-WP, it has major problems with "cranks" pushing extreme viewpoints. Also, many of the worst users on Wikimedia Commons, who fight any controls over adult content tooth and nail (resulting in thousands of close-up penis photos and other disgusting stuff), came to Commons from de-WP.

3) Your nitpicking about the exact language is superfluous. Oppong himself read it as a direct and violent threat, and he contacted his local police. Who did nothing, as usual, saying that "it's an American website and we have no control over it legally". This is part of how Wikipedia gets away with its abuses and incompetence.

4) Are you "Giftzwerg 88"? Because your furious spluttering reminds me of him.

The bogosity meter just pegged.