Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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.

Comment: So, to summarize.... (Score 1) 55

So, to summarize:

1) it appears from the threads on this post that many Slashdotters find it acceptable for corporate paid editors to mess openly with Wikipedia articles.

2) and, it's similarly perfectly acceptable for anonymous Wikipedia editors to threaten people who uncover these schemes.

3) plus, Oppong is black, and the threat involved "curb stomping", a very ugly act of violence that white "skinheads" are fond of doing to their enemies. As Oppong noted, it was seen being done (by a white racist, to a black man) in the film "American History X". So acts of skinhead violence are A-OKAY on Wikipedia, because "oh well, people make violent threats on Wikipedia all the time".

I'm getting the impression that soon it will be socially acceptable for Wikipedia's cultlike fans to commit acts of real-world violence against their critics, plus any journalists who uncover Wikipedia corruption. Why?

+ - German Wikipedia Has Problems With Paid Editing -- And Threats Of Violence 2

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "As German journalist Marvin Oppong learned recently, there are a number of people who work to make articles about certain corporations and trade groups on German Wikipedia "look better". And when Oppong published his discoveries, one reaction was an openly violent threat, aimed at him, posted on de-WP's "Kurier" noticeboard. Just as with English Wikipedia, it is apparently a "terrible crime" to criticize German Wikipedia, even when Jimbo Wales's "bright line" rule on paid editing is being violated. Unlike English WP, the Germans will threaten to "curbstone" people for saying it."

+ - Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles 7

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "As reported before on Slashdot, one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the "neutral point of view" policy, per their co-founder Jimmy Wales. And yet, the Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy has recently performed a study showing that a large percentage of the Wikimedia Foundation's largest cash donors have violated that policy. Repeatedly, and wantonly. In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations — and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy. It reeks of outright favoritism. The first installment of an upcoming multi-part series discusses the co-creator of Cards Against Humanity, and his blatant editing of the Wikipedia article about his card game, followed by a $70,000 donation to the WMF. An honest donation, or hush money?"

+ - Is Wikipedia "accurate"? Not necessarily..... 1

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "A new post on the Wikipediocracy website discusses the notorious, albeit now badly-dated, 2005 study published in Nature magazine claiming that Wikipedia content was almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica in science topics. Despite not being a ringing endorsement of Wikipedia, the news media of 2005 tended to report it as such. This new article includes a long list of examples of Wikipedia content failures, including major paid-content abuses and some outright, highly-successful hoaxes. All were subsequent to the 2005 study, the bulk of them having occurred in the past year. And all occurred while Wikipedians continued to claim that Wikipedia just keeps "getting better and better". Perhaps Klee Irwin might have a different take on that?"

Comment: Criticism of Wikipedia -- there is a place for it (Score 1) 161

by metasonix (#44126617) Attached to: Interview: Ask Jimmy Wales What You Will
If anyone wants to see evidence of Wikipedia's many, many (many!) problems, try Wikipediocracy. There is a blog with regular posts full of horror and madness, plus a forum where you can be lectured at length about the failings of Wikipedia, and Jimbo. And all nonprofit too.
User Journal

Journal: evidently

Journal by metasonix

Slashdot has been hijacked by Wikipedia insiders. Stories that are in any way negative about Wikipedia never make it to the front page.

Facebook

+ - Facebook PR Firm Edited Its Own Wikipedia Page->

Submitted by metasonix
metasonix (650947) writes "In the midst of all this week's flap about Facebook hiring notorious PR firm Burson-Marsteller to defame Google, I discovered something else: a Burson-Marsteller employee completely rewrote the firm's Wikipedia article to remove all the negative information. He did it openly, he violated a number of Wikipedia internal policies, another Wikipedia editor helped him, and no one was the wiser."
Link to Original Source

Comment: This is pathetic. (Score 1) 827

by metasonix (#33361484) Attached to: Calling Shenanigans On Super SATA's Claimed Audio Qualities
You should see the kind of psychotic letters the major high-end magazines get routinely. Sometimes they have to take out orders of protection against certain readers.

High-end audio is a form of mental illness that only afflicts men over the age of 40. They are massively insecure, and usually affluent--but they comprise a VERY small group.

If Slashdotters had some actual brains, they'd sit on their hands. Because the more they squawk about "double-blind tests", the more attention (and sales) high-end gear makers and high-end publications get.

Because nobody loves a troll, right or wrong.

PS: Mr. Steward got death threats. Nice going.

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...