Vote | Larry's Text | stubs | edit this list | discuss these tasks | Category:Philosophy | Portal:Philosophy | RFC
[edit] WikiCareer Milestones
- 16:00, 24 May 2006 - First Edit
- 21:27, 5 June 2006 - Received an Original Barnstar.
- 18:58, 17 September 2006 - Execution of requested moved Pulp Fiction to Pulp Fiction (film). Quote from the admin User:GTBacchus: requested move with good reasoning drawing wide support; see talk page for discussion.
- 16:45, 23 September 2006 - 1000th mainspace edit: List of volcanoes in Sulu Islands (top)
- 17:48, 23 September 2006 - Completed splitting List of volcanoes into 159 articles in 535 edits.
- 22:24, 5 October 2006 - First Vandalism.
- 05:36, 18 October 2006 - First Wikipedia Censorship.
- 08:40, 31 October 2006 - Tenth Vandalism. Average response time: 62.21875 hours
- 11:48, 8 November 2006 - Awarding first barnstar. Joined Esperanza Barnstar Brigade.
- 23:55, 1 January 2007 - Death of Esperanza. [1]
- 18:38, 4 January 2007 - Victim of Admin Abuse. (censorship of personal opinion) [2] [3]
- 12:41, 6 January 2007 - Added E.S.P. title on username for Esperanza.
- 01:40, 21 January 2007 - Successfully defended {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}} userbox from Miscellany for deletion. The result of the debate was keep. (Closed by: User:Bucketsofg) [4]. Thank you for all you supporters of freedom of speech.
- 01:48, 7 March 2007 - Death of Concordia.
[edit] Censored
[edit] Suppressed via Admin Abuse
The following userbox was abruptly deleted. If you find it redlinked again on the second userbox from the top at your right column of boxes, it has been deleted again. The original box is substed here:
-
[edit] Talk Page
The following sub-section is censored off of Mr. Jimbo Wales' talk page (→On Wikipedia - rv long message per disputes tempate atop page. I suggest breaking this up into actionable items and positing them to relevant policy discussions and/or writing up a formal proposal)
[edit] On Wikipedia
Dear Mr. Wales,
This one is a pretty long garbled post on your talk, but please, Mr. Wales, bear with me and read it thru. I have used wikipedia since it was still called Nupedia, and only till recently have I became more involved in its editing. But since then, I have been nagged by one question that's been bothering me. Well, it all started with a quarrel I got with another editor, and it stressed me a lot. I didn't understand what's going on. (I'm not gonna go in depth on that issue, it's personal and I got over it) So, I dig around and found lots of organization such as the esperanza, and concordia, and I joined them. From them, I learned about wikiquette, and many other wikipedia related issues, like right to vanish, how to be firm but still polite, and wikilove. Since then, I've encountered several more editors whose attitudes seems aren't very wikified. So, why does this happen? why doesn't wikipedia have a training rute? You know, like some sort of quick tutorial that one could go thru? (these aren't the question that nags me but I think it still burns) Instead, when you sign up you'd just be given link and you'd have to dig around to know how to be a good wikipedian. (when you eventually finds out what is a wikipedian and a word good in prefix)
The principles of wikipedia is very good not only for one being a wikipedian editor, but it's also, applicable to life in general. From wikilove, to be bold, be civil, there's a ton of good stuff on WP:LOP. I could name at least a hundred people I know who could learn a thing or two from the behavioral section. And some genuine encyclopedia entry could use the rest.
My digging around then led me onto a more disturbing issues. You see, some of my friends and I talked a lot about wikipedia. In fact my first edit was on wikibooks (an under-represented section, IMHO) as a request. I didn't get addicted into editing then, however. But one of the things we used to talk about was how accurate wikipedia articles are. Even stubs like astral microtubules are at least pretty accurate for the unknowledgable. That perception is shaken when I found the criticism aimed at wikipedia. Particularly one I read from a neurologist about his/her contribution screwed by an "unknowledgable" which led to the editor's retirement.
I know, there's so much hostility against wikipedia right now, that I might get some flak by even bringing this up, but please don't take this as an attack, Wikipedia is the site where I spend most of my online time. But I am going to pour an opened can of worm. Just like: only when a hero falls, that his/her greatness will become apparent. Anyway, on my digging around, I found many retired editor just fed up with "unknowledgables" ruining their professional edit. But wikipedia is always a work in progress, there is now way an article can be declared finished. And I believe that, because knowledge, by nature, is evolving. The day we stop knowing new stuff is the day we die. But a work in progress is also a double edged sword, progress can be forward or backward, or, according to backward peoples, backward or forward. Wikipedia's solution to POV, is concensus.
Although one critic has said that concensus does not mean truth, and the Simpsons keep teaching us that democracy doesn't work, the wisdom of the crowd, is almost always approximately correct, while so many scientist's postulations are disastrously wrong. Wouldn't it be best if the crowd would correct the scientists while the scientists correct the crowd? Like when they said that the world was flat and they got burned at the stake? Then that guy stumbled on an island he thought was India? Boy, imagine the red faces on those guys, eh? :D Well, it's one example of not listening to other people's criticism. If you think one thing is right, and you won't change your mind no matter what, you could get stuck on the stick during bonfires. And vice versa, when crowds don't like a leader's decision, like the war on iraq, they would voice their objections. On some country, like Indonesia, if you say something negative (publicly, of course) towards a leader, albeit it be that you're reporting an official's corruption or criticizing their policy, you will get tried and imprisoned.
And seems to me, that also has happened with wikipedia. Some folks has been burned for voicing an unpopular vote. Granted, some of them are uncivil etc.etc. and got banned. But some are pretty nice on their comment. (albeit unpopular) But many of the criticism has fallen on deaf ear. This is the one thing that nags me and kept me asking: Why do they choose a "silent" reply to criticism? Did they have achieved a concensus to silence this? But concensus is a great thing to have, look at the WP:LOP what a great concensus, no matter who thought it up, it was the result of the wisdom of the crowd. What was I criticizing, well, they are all standing criticism on wikipedia. (I think that article needs a cleanup -and ironically, incomplete, IMHO) -oh, how I'd get some "Well, why don't you fix it" post on my talk for that -- so I'll preanswer it: Because wikipedia is a work in progress. -- And how some of it falls on deaf ear.
Some criticism, is easy to understand if you've been roaming wikipedia for a while, like Trustworthiness, Errors and omissions, Systemic bias, Standards etc. the answers are at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections But the reply page omits some of the most crucial criticism against wikipedia. Like Abuse of Power. I think [5] article gives a rather "NPOV" third person perspective on the issue of "King Jimbo". I know, the founder reserve the veto right on everything wikipedia, but I just wanted some questions answered since I, like many other, donated my time (and ultimately, money in terms of ISP dollars) to contribute to wikipedia, and at least we'd like to have some justifications for what many perceive as unjust or criticizable issue. Since, quote the article: "The last six months haven't been kind to Wikipedia. Not only has the project lost some of its most respected contributors, but some of its proudest supporters have cooled on it, too." And it was written in april.
If you beared with me and read this thru up to here, thanks :)
And now, we have citizendium built by Larry Sanger. The guy that the wikipedia founder chose not to credit as co-creator. And as the Register's article pointed out, the article Larry Sanger was personally edited by the Grand Master himself. Which, after digging into the article history turns out to be lousy stinkin words removed. Which led to a long term issue. Now, one thing, you can't deal with every measly stinkin' things that they say against you. I learned that from all those teachers who screwed me in high school. But in the end, if the issue remains standing for some time, you just gonna have to stand up for yourself and explain everything some way.
Citizendium, is gonna be a fork of wikipedia that I think, seems to answer some of the most important standing issues on wikipedia, at least in principle. Says them...
The solution to the "knowledgables" issue: Interim Chief Subject Editors for the major disciplines. These are people who will work both on the wiki and on discipline-specific forums or mailing lists to help. Where, it seems, people with credentials would apply for a certain position and would then, although they haven't decided, probably be "elected" in some way.
The solution to the "Absolute Ruler" issue: From the citizendium.org mainpage: When the charter is adopted, Larry will be fully beholden to whatever processes it defines. He might then lose his role as editor-in-chief. He's willing to take that chance in order to set up a community that is healthy, vibrant, responsible, and self-managing. In fact, Larry is committed to stepping down from the leadership of the Citizendium within two or three years at latest, to set the healthy precedent of allowing others--members of the volunteer community--to take over his role.
Although, not to be a traitor, I've signed up with citizendium's pilot project. I don't know if I'd be approved or not even though I'm still not sure if the second part would really solve the issue, since as it said, things are still uncertain. The page and a New Compendium of Knowledge will explain things better than what I can condense in this post. I wonder if you've read it?
So, to wrap things up, thank you for reading this through, and please don't take this as an attack, but as I said, I had that question that's been bothering me. And the itchy needs scratchy scratchy.
The name citizendium doesn't even contain the prefix "wiki" which has now been associated and spread like wildfire across the internet. But then again, we might see "endium" suffix start to spread within the next few months. Please Mr. Wales, speak up and resolve standing issues with wikipedia. I have come to love this encyclopedia and I don't think we need another mirror of it. Answers.com crowding up google searches has been quite annoying to me. I think if the issues citizendium is trying to address can be resolved within wikipedia, there won't be any match against wikipedia for the forseeable future.
Feureau has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Feureau 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
PS> Please take my userpage with tongue on your cheek. Many things said there are out of date. I'm just too lazy to edit it out and it makes the page longer so it'll at least look better to hold more userboxes. If you know a good one, would you recommend me? -userboxes that is- :P
[edit] UnNews:Uncyclopedia to Host Homeless Esperanzian
|
This article is part of UnNews, your source for up-to-the-microsecond misinformation.
|
4 January 2007
UNCYCLOPEDIA, PLANET PLUTO - After days of wandering thru space, many ousted Esperanzian finally reach Uncyclopedia's planet Pluto. Their arrival was neither glorious nor greeted by warm welcomes. Their space ship was battered, their oxygen supply low, their food and water ran out days ago. They had nowhere to go when they reached the planet Pluto.
After an uphill battle, Wikipedians finally beaten Esperanza just before new year's eve. "Just like Bush and Saddam, we don't want to hear anymore about Esperanza in 2007." One wikipedian wrote on his vote's comment space. The final ballot was cast, the voting was closed, and the votes were counted. And then recounted. Being in Florida, Wikipedia had to count the ballot 7 times. Each time, a landslide victory over the Esperanzian was announced. Adding insult to Esperanzian's injury. They were beaten out of Wikipedia Headquarters in Miami, Florida. The CSI was having lunch at the time and couldn't be reached for comments.
The closing statement didn't even state that Esperanza was to be condemned. It merely states that Esperanza was to be decentralized. The Wikipedian has no moral justification nor any legal basis for the destruction of Esperanza. The council of Esperanza did not escape the carnage. They stood for trial for crimes against Wikipedia and was executed at dawn today. A video of their tragic death recorded on a cellphone currently circulates on the internet. It illustrates the taunting of wikipedians while some were yelling "Allahuakbar", meaning God is Great. The leaders kept their unflinching dignity until they die. They were so scared that only when they die, can they wet their pants.
The first Esperanzian was found by a 10 year old uncyclopedian when the cat she was huffing escaped and ran away. The cat was crushed by the Esperanzian's space ship. Later that day, more ships landed on Uncyclopedian planet Pluto.
The torrent of refugees alerted the high ranking officials of Uncyclopedia, who at the time was busy contemplating the future of nihilism. Within minutes they announced that Uncyclopedia will build a refugee camp for the Esperanzians. "We laid out some newspaper on our backyard. It should be enough for tonight. We're still looking for some sticks to prop up a makeshift tent." Said one official.
This wasn't the first time the Wikipedian went after the Esperanzian. "We beaten their MfDs before. But they kept coming back." One battle-wary Esperanzian explains. "I hope they won't attack this place. We have no where else to go. We'd like to say thank you and award you guys with the original barnstar. If only they'd let us take our barnstar with us. All we have is love for you guys. And gals."
In a press conference, WP President Jimbo W. Wales calls the execution of the Esperanza Council "A great victory which would lead to a brighter future for Wikipedians and Esperanzians alike." Wikipedia is preparing for a five days of celebration of the eradication of Esperanza. "This was an evil regime, who who who kills their own people, builds weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorist under the pretense of love. They were living in sin when they love one another. Especially when they use condoms or love another person of the same sex." says the Wikipedian president Jimbo W. Wales.
Their clothes tattered, their bodies drained of fluids, the Esperanzian lost the place they used to call home. The wikipedian turned it into a dumpsite where they throw away all articles they choose to delete. But for a moment, at least, they have a place to call home, even if it is only a piece of newspaper laid on someone's backyard. That is, until the Uncyclopedians got fed up with their power of love and kick them out of their planet.
[edit] UnNews:Wikipedia sells out to Uncyclopedia
|
This article is part of UnNews, your source for up-to-the-microsecond misinformation.
|
New York, NY - Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that any drunken idiot, imbecile, or other kind of fool can edit, has sold out to its rival, Uncyclopedia, which offers much more relevant and interesting, some even say entertaining, articles about current events on a local, regional, national, international, and cosmic scale.
"Wikipedia may have started it," Iggy Spinoza, an Uncyclopedia spokesman maintains, "but Uncuclopedia has finished it."
With the acquisition of Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia becomes the largest and, by far, the most popular source of information and misinformation on the Internet, reaching billions of homes and offices across the globe.
"Ralph Waldo Enema said that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," Spinoza remarks, "and that was the word of Wikipedia's undoing: consistency."
The former leader among online encyclopedias insisted upon sticking to the facts, as its writers saw them, which led to its decline in use and popularity, since many of its alleged facts proved to be outdated, incomplete, or flat-out wrong.
For example, a Wikipedia article on George Washington listed him as "the first queen of the United States" instead of America's first pope. Another claimed that Sarah Michelle Gellar can act.
Likewise, an article on Michael Jackson insisted upon referring to the entertainer as a male, despite her having undergone sex-reassignment surgery and given birth on at least two occasions to roadside attractions [6].
Similarly, Wikipedia has been taken to task for describing O. J. Simpson and Ted Kennedy as innocent of the respective deaths of Nicole Brown and Mary Jo Kopechne, when "the American people," Spinoza says, "know the bastards killed those women."
Wikipedia lost credibility, too, for its numerous ("hundreds, actually," according to Spinoza) articles on commercial goods and services: "Everything from Hasbro's newest toy, My Little Penis [7], to TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer appeared as so-called articles. They actually amounted to unpaid ads that slanted their content in favor of the products or services they were selling in the guise of providing scholarly information."
Moreover, Wikipedia offended the sensibilities of many of its one-time readers by its insistence on covering subjects that many regarded as pornographic. One article, in particular, on Bill Clinton's favorite activity, illustrated the content with same-sex couples, as if only homosexual men and women engage in oral sex, yet, the encyclopedia's editors maintained that the article was unbiased, fair, and accurate. "I'd prefer Wikipedia to stay the hell out of my bedroom," announced one irate reader, Miss Ima Tyrbatur.
Political correctness also hastened the decline of the once-leading online encyclopedia, with favorable treatment being given to social and political topics that have found favor with the left and short shrift being awarded subjects of interest to the right. The encyclopedia lost the trust of the American people for the same reason that FOX News has gained their faith and for the same reason that Uncyclopedia has become the most widely read and used online encyclopedia on the planet: by treating all topics with healthy skepticism but a fair and balanced point of view. "We're not here to tell you it's okay to be a queer, a liberal, or a Democrat", Spinoza said. "Instead, we're going to report on the consequences of their actions and beliefs and let you decide."
Wikipedia's fate is undecided at this point, but it is possible, Spinoza says, that it may become a warehouse of trivia concerning actors, actresses, politicians, athletes, singers, fads, and other aspects of popular culture and other ephemera. "That may not seem like much, but, in the Entertainment Age, it's huge," Spinoza said.
Wikipedia and its fans, who call themselves Wikipedians, declined to comment on the encyclopedia's ill fortune. However, Uncyclopedia and its fans, the Uncyclopedians, are said to be fairly balanced between bliss and apathy, as always.
[edit] See Also
