PSA: Our site culture is dropping.

submitted by wizzwizz4 from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's not a fucking obscure term.

No. But depending on your definitions of "disproportionate", "privilege", etc.. and the weight you put on political power over skill… you can start to see how it's not cut and dry whether any given individual counts as "elite". And on Wikipedia, rightly or wrongly, you can't say "for the purposes of this article, the requirements for categorisation as elite are…".

I'll put it like this: do you really want somebody being able to worm their way off such a list by declaring that they aren't an elite?

You have to write things in the right way.

This has become soft censorship.

It doesn't have to be. I took some time to look through some of what you wrote, and most of what was removed isn't Wikipedia-ey, but could've been. Even if you're Right™, you still have to write stuff neutrally.

A LOT of information is blocked.

And it doesn't have to be. If you write stuff in a way that it doesn't get removed, it won't be. Writing it that way does serve to limit what you can write, but I don't think the limit is necessarily bad.

Reddit and SaidIt are anything but organized - yet they're still great resources.

True, true. But they're not encyclopedias. You can't look information up there easily, etc.. It serves a different purpose.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No. But depending on your definitions of "disproportionate", "privilege", etc.

I didn't say those.

I said "ELITE". How would you misinterpret that? You're arguing for argument sake.

This has become soft censorship.

It doesn't have to be.

I know but it is. Fuck Wikipedia-ey robot legalese elitist code bullshit. My human words are generally adequate and they are censoring for much worse overarching reasons. There's a LOT of shitty articles all over Wikipedia that don't measure up to you Wikipedia-ey-ish-ness-ity - but they're about inconsequential things.

They can correct my gutter grammar rather than delete my good stuff.

Now you can't look up stuff in the encyclopedia because it's all be censored or pruned down to a banal paragraph in the name of "brevity". If you want details on a matter, Wikipedia is no longer a good resource.

Are my SaidIt, Tigole, Pedophocracy, and other articles too long? Sure. But you'll likely never want for more details because it's all included.

I'm not going to argue with you about WP anymore. WP is good and bad. And the bad is getting worse. I'm still gonna fight it. You're blind if you don't see it and foolish to defend it. There are pros and cons. Recognizing the flaws does not mean you are entirely against it.

I'm done.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't say those.

They were in your definition-from-Wikipedia. And different meanings of those lead to a different meaning of "elite".

How would you misinterpret that?

Oh, I wouldn't. But I guarantee you that my Correct Interpretation™ of this Objective Word™ is different to yours.

My human words are generally adequate

but biased. That's the trouble. Your bias might be completely founded, but Wikipedia's supposed to be unbiased. If you see biased wording on Wikipedia, and you're not too tired to fix it, fix it. Make it unbiased (not "counter-biased"; I don't even need to say that) to improve the article.

They can correct my gutter grammar rather than delete my good stuff.

Yeah, but that's effort. They're lazy. I'm lazy. You're lazy, except about stuff you're passionate about and stuff that Needs Doing™.

I'm not going to argue with you about WP anymore.

But, but… actually, that's probably for the best. I'm saying "this is how it should be" and you're saying "this is how it is" and we're getting nowhere.