4 ms·
> Wikipedia, as it is currently run, is simply and literally out of control, and a potential menace to all kinds of institutions and individuals. > This is an
by i336_ 10y ago
> Wikipedia, as it is currently run, is simply and literally out of control, and a potential menace to all kinds of institutions and individuals.
> This is an organisation that — quite scandalously — polices itself, judges itself, and legitimises itself. It is always right because it decides what is right. You are always wrong because it decides what is wrong. You can choose to bow to its authority and become a loyal subject, or be condemned as an unbeliever.
You can s/Wikipedia/The Daily Mail/g quite easily here, with no loss of informational accuracy.
> [I] heard [Wikipedia] was full of errors and shot through with personal prejudices and score-settling.
Curious you should say that!!
Also, I would have liked to see the unedited IRC (I assume IRC) logs from the conversations that happened so I could draw my own conclusions from the events that took place.
It seems to me like the Mail sniffed around some contacts, somehow got in touch with this guy, and then "an editor worked with him" (note quotes) to produce this puff piece. (Literally, it looks like they're pouting and trying to puff their chests out.)
- bjourne 10y agoYou can read all the conversations yourself as they took place on various Wikipedia pages: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_McCann/Archive_1 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_McCann_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.23.93.50 I've probably missed some.
- i336_ 10y agoOh, thanks! ...Wow, the conversations are almost as bad as the article itself...
- bigbugbag 10y agoOnce you've seen the inner working of wikipedia you know that this daily mail piece if factually accurate, I'd even say that it only brushes the tip of the iceberg. The wikipedia cabal has been raised as an issue since at least 2003 when the current article on meta was created: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction=prev&oldid=4949 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabal&direction...
- bigbugbag 10y agoThere's also this page documenting the issues of wikipedia pushing contributors away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_los...