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 -  (6 children)

The IOTA article was… terrible, to be frank. Back when this was all going down, I wrote an answer on IOTA Stack Exchange about this.:

The IOTA page on Wikipedia was deleted because it wasn't a great Wikipedia article). It was poorly sourced, contained much information that wasn't in the sources given... They just decided to rewrite it from scratch because the article was so terrible. The only arguments in favour of keeping it) seem to be about IOTA's notability. And IOTA is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article... just not that article.

The article has been deleted, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has no intention of there being an article about IOTA. Here's the latest draft) of the new article... which isn't much better to be honest. Why can't people just get together and write a decent Wikipedia article about IOTA?! This draft, being practically identical to the original, has been deleted. We'll have to wait a bit for an IOTA article.

And it was terrible, because IOTA people kept coming on and making it spammy, advertising it as something it's not. And Wikipedia gave it another chance, and that was ultimately taken down too.

They LIE LIE LIE LIE all day long about politics.

I'd like to see some of that, actually. I was under the impression that Wikipedia stayed away from politics. Or does the staying away count as lying?

What's wrong with "List of acknowledged pedophilia elites" […]?

What's an "elite"? Why are you using "pedophilia" as an adjective? What's "acknowleged"? "List of high-profile convicted paedophiles" might be a better title for the article.

If you read any other article about any major tech company they will write like an advert without skepticism and in glowing terms.

Like the article on Microsoft which discusses EU fines, government surveillance and hypocrisy, and links to the Criticism of Microsoft article three times? The Apple Inc. article could be better, but even that has several sections of criticism and even (a small) one entitled "Criticism and controversies".

The quality of those articles is significantly, significantly higher than the IOTA one.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't write the IOTA article. I'm not defending it. You missed my point. Wikipedia used to build and improve things. Now they just censor things.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia stayed away from politics.

WTF? Every page about every politician is sure to be loaded with crap. WP doesn't stay away from politics AT ALL!

The 9/11 page is lies top to bottom. Russiagate. You name it. Wikipedia only repeats "legitimate" corporate lies news.

What's an "elite"? Why are you using "pedophilia" as an adjective? What's "acknowleged"?

Don't be dunce.

"List of high-profile convicted paedophiles" might be a better title for the article.

Maybe. That's more or less what it's become - anyone with fame and/or power. A wider view shows the broad scale and deep extent of it's all pervasive corruption that is ignored by the elites and those with power, if not participating in it.

All good articles have criticism sections. But if the IOTA can't even get a foothold then how can you even write a criticism. MS and Apple have been around since the 1980s. Has IOTA? Worth billion$. Is IOTA?

You can find a criticism section on the James Corbett and SaidIt articles too.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Every page about every politician is sure to be loaded with crap.

Interesting. I forgot about actual political issues. A brief survey suggests that many of these are a little biased in their wording, but not quite poor quality; I might touch a few of them up when I've got time for the inevitable debates in the Talk section that follow.

Don't be dunce.

I'm not. Seriously, what counts as "elite"? You're expecting short inferential distances (something I do significantly more than you, so I'm quite chuffed that I can finally call you out on it) and neglecting the vast spectrum of what that word means to different people.

Maybe.

Then maybe you can try making that article on Wikipedia. If you're incredibly careful to tiptoe around with the wording you use, you might get it past the "filter". Focus on wording it so that it doesn't trigger the reflexive "this is bad" response in the new article reviewers and, at least at first, only include people for which you can find:

  • Actual court documents showing the convictions; and
  • At least two news articles from reputable (rightly or wrongly) groups with different biases.

You're targeting an audience, like I am when writing this comment. Make concessions in what you're writing to get your core point across; sure, people will be able to "take you out of context" more easily, but it will be about the trivial ancillary things, not the core ones.

But if the IOTA can't even get a foothold then how can you even write a criticism.

Since I wrote that answer on IOTA Stack Exchange, I always planned to wait a couple of years before writing another article about it, and hope that the article got grounded and started to develop a root system strong foundation of links before it got vandalised by those wanting it to be an advertisement.

You have to write things in the right way. And the only problem with the IOTA article was that it wasn't written like a Wikipedia article.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=elite

Elite : In political and sociological theory, the elite are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society. More at Wikipedia

It's not a fucking obscure term. Everyone knows what it is. Except you apparently.

Yes, now that there's enough content gathered up, there might be a chance to create in on WP. I'm banned from doing political stuff there, but I still do little things and am always pushing the envelope - so far undetected since my 2016 ban - but also FAR more ineffective.

Feel free to copy paste the whole thing if you like and edit it down as you see fit. Many of the links and citations will be refuted and thrown out, and some major sections may be deleted but there's enough remaining to be a legit article, or at very least a heavily bulldogged stub. I salute anyone who tries - and I really hope they include the lists - which is why I started it in the first place - so see how legitimately systemic it was.

The article is targeting the truth. I have not said anyone was a pedo without citations. I've not said anyone was one unless they were convicted. The others are allegations - including now dead alleged pedos with hundreds of victims who will never see justice.

You have to write things in the right way.

This has become soft censorship. The authoritarians don't tolerate sloppiness on Wikipedia any more. This has pros and cons. A LOT of information is blocked. That's a huge fucking con.

They could dial it back a bit or a lot and still provide a quality resource, perhaps even far superior.

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

[–]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.