5 ms·

1. Wikimedia foundation is doing literally nothing. It is painfully obvious that they should hire people who would sit all day and review actions of admins (the

by rvba 5y ago

1. Wikimedia foundation is doing literally nothing. It is painfully obvious that they should hire people who would sit all day and review actions of admins (their bans, reverts, edit wars.. yes admins participate in them too, but nobody does anything about it). Obviously we end up with a question "who watches the watchmen", but this could be made all public too. For example Wikipedia has a role called CheckUser - what is a person that has special access rights to check IP addresses of all other users. This is mainly used to see if a person doesn't use multiple sock puppet accounts to make various types of abuse (e.g. vote manipulation). I know a local Wikipedia, where the CheckUser literally refuses to check if admins don't have sock puppet accounts. This means that the admins can literally make any sock puppet they want and always win any vote, including future votes for a new CheckUser. What can you do about it? Nothing. Can you write about this to Wikimedia Foundation? Nope. There even isnt any official way to contact them. They basically let local Wikipedia branches run themselves. 2A. You write a lot of text to defend literal garbage. That admin added 80 THOUSAND incredibly low effort redirects related to woman breasts. "Titty tumors", "Segmental removal of the titties", "Constructions of the booby", "Hypoplastic tits", "Atrophy of the titties"... Please explain to me how this is any good? If a new user made such garbage, it would be speed deleted and the user IP banned immediately. 2B. So basically an experienced Wikipedia user still got their article speed deleted, had to fight to get it back.. and then somehow what I wrote is wrong. So to sum up, if you dont like the facts, you ignore the facts? I realy dont understand what is your point here. 3. Again, you seem to miss the point. Someone asked for an example of a political article that was problematic. So I provided an article. You can look at the edit history to see that there were literal wars about everything there. Also in case of articles about living people, politicians etc. it is often quite clear that said politicians or their aides are the ones who are tasked with guarding the article, editing it. > Please let us know how the article is not neutral. Do you represent Wikipedia or Wikipedia foundation in any way?

strenholme 5y ago
You did not provide one link nor citation in your entire 400-word rant.
- rvba 5y ago
  Hey, please explain to me why "Constructions of the booby", or "Atrophy of the titties" are things that should be on Wikipedia? I guess you cannot defend this, so you just change the subject. Or maybe you are a sexist, who thinks that this is ok. Why do you demand citations when Wikipedia is discussed? For any other topic, you dont demand them, or dont use them. I guess you are just some common troll, probably a Wikipedia admin. Joke's on me, since I even bothered to reply.
  - strenholme 5y ago
    Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Constructions_of_the_booby https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Atrophy_of_the_titties https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... (Edit: The references show that they were on the Wikipedia, but were deleted in 2015, i.e. before #MeToo. Also, the offending admin was topic banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ) I am demanding citations because you’re making contentious accusations based on half-truths. This will be my last reply to you; I do not think a productive conversation is possible at this point.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      It is clear from when he originally brought it up that those articles had been, eventually, removed. Indeed, part of his point (and a relevant issue, I believe) was to ask why this took so long. Since this must be clear to you, it seems that your comment is disingenuous.
      - strenholme 5y ago
        I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a process where consensus, reliable sourcing, and a desire to be neutral and accurate determines what is acceptable and not acceptable. I much prefer the process to what Reddit does, which is, in many subreddits, to quickly ban anyone who goes against the group think of a given subreddit, even if the subreddit is wrong. In Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb, is that the truth does win out, even if it takes a while to get there. As one example, while Tara Reade’s now-discredited accusation [1] against Joe Biden was all over numerous subreddits and presented as objective fact, [2] the Wikipedia was taking a slower, more measured approach to reporting the accusations which ultimately ended up being far more accurate than what Reddit was doing at the time. [3] As another case, a lot of noise was made over how horrible the Wikipedia was because Clarice Phelps didn’t have a Wikipedia article. She has one today. [4] [1] This probably needs a citation. How about https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-s... or, yeah, since it’s so heavily sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_alleg... [2] For example, https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multiple_witnesses_have_come_forward_and_verified/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multip... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_%22penetrated_%5Bher%5D_with_his_fingers%22_without_her_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps [5] Wikipedia has a hard time with allowing articles about cool open source projects and languages. I agree this is really annoying, since it means I have to dig through GitHub, forums like this one, or (for fonts) Google Fonts to find high quality open source programs or content. [6] Adding footnotes without a reference to the footnote is an old alt.sysadmin.recovery tradition

by rvba 5y ago

strenholme 5y ago

You did not provide one link nor citation in your entire 400-word rant.

rvba 5y ago
Hey, please explain to me why "Constructions of the booby", or "Atrophy of the titties" are things that should be on Wikipedia? I guess you cannot defend this, so you just change the subject. Or maybe you are a sexist, who thinks that this is ok. Why do you demand citations when Wikipedia is discussed? For any other topic, you dont demand them, or dont use them. I guess you are just some common troll, probably a Wikipedia admin. Joke's on me, since I even bothered to reply.
- strenholme 5y ago
  Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Constructions_of_the_booby https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Atrophy_of_the_titties https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delet... (Edit: The references show that they were on the Wikipedia, but were deleted in 2015, i.e. before #MeToo. Also, the offending admin was topic banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ) I am demanding citations because you’re making contentious accusations based on half-truths. This will be my last reply to you; I do not think a productive conversation is possible at this point.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    It is clear from when he originally brought it up that those articles had been, eventually, removed. Indeed, part of his point (and a relevant issue, I believe) was to ask why this took so long. Since this must be clear to you, it seems that your comment is disingenuous.
    - strenholme 5y ago
      I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a process where consensus, reliable sourcing, and a desire to be neutral and accurate determines what is acceptable and not acceptable. I much prefer the process to what Reddit does, which is, in many subreddits, to quickly ban anyone who goes against the group think of a given subreddit, even if the subreddit is wrong. In Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb, is that the truth does win out, even if it takes a while to get there. As one example, while Tara Reade’s now-discredited accusation [1] against Joe Biden was all over numerous subreddits and presented as objective fact, [2] the Wikipedia was taking a slower, more measured approach to reporting the accusations which ultimately ended up being far more accurate than what Reddit was doing at the time. [3] As another case, a lot of noise was made over how horrible the Wikipedia was because Clarice Phelps didn’t have a Wikipedia article. She has one today. [4] [1] This probably needs a citation. How about https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-s... or, yeah, since it’s so heavily sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_alleg... [2] For example, https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multiple_witnesses_have_come_forward_and_verified/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multip... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_%22penetrated_%5Bher%5D_with_his_fingers%22_without_her_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps [5] Wikipedia has a hard time with allowing articles about cool open source projects and languages. I agree this is really annoying, since it means I have to dig through GitHub, forums like this one, or (for fonts) Google Fonts to find high quality open source programs or content. [6] Adding footnotes without a reference to the footnote is an old alt.sysadmin.recovery tradition