Seeking tag-team members for edit jihad against Wickedpedians
The biggest issue now (there are other issues) is that the Wickedpedians are violating the Wikipedia rule against using personal blogs as sources. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) when a blogger is writing about him/herself and (2) when a blogger is a news media professional who is writing on a blog that is under the "full editorial control" of a news media outlet (called a "newspaper" in the rules but presumably also including other kinds of media outlets). Neither of these exceptions applies to the personal blogs cited in the bio, i.e., the personal blogs of Wesley "Ding" Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers. The Wickedpedians went so far as to claim that these two BVD-clad bloggers are "syndicated columnists" or "nationally syndicated op-ed columnists"!
It could be argued that the Wikipedia rule called "Ignore All Rules" allows exceptions to be made to the Wikipedia rules. The "Ignore All Rules" webpage says, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." However, this rule is ambiguous, because the Wikipedia webpage titled Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means implies that the "Ignore All Rules" rule was only intended to encourage readers to edit Wikipedia without first bothering to learn the Wikipedia rules. Also, it is not clear whether a consensus of a Wikipedia article's editors is needed for making an exception to a rule. But if the "Ignore All Rules" rule is applied to create an exception to a Wikipedia rule, in this case the rule against using blogs as sources, then I assert that the exception must be available to all editors of the Wikipedia article. Otherwise the "Ignore All Rules" rule would just be a tool for a clique of Wickedpedian control freaks to create exceptions to the rules just for themselves whenever they please. The Wickedpedians censored references to this blog while citing the blogs of Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ.
Personally, I think that the rule against using personal blogs as sources is stupid. A citation of a personal blog does not imply Wikipedia endorsement of the citation. And the blogs themselves often contain citations of reliable sources. What is the difference between direct citation of a reliable source and giving a link to a blog that contains a citation of that source? The linked blog article might contain the blogger's own personal opinion in addition to the citation of the reliable source, but IMO there is nothing wrong about Wikipedia linking to a personal opinion in a blog so long as it is clear that the opinion is not endorsed by Wikipedia. Links are a convenient way of avoiding cluttering up text with material that is contained in the linked sources. That is the way that the Internet is supposed to operate. Welcome to the 21st century. But as I said, if an exception to the rule against citing blogs is made for some blogs, then I assert that the exception must be made for all blogs.
I think that the Wickpedians are becoming nervous about canceling my edits. My edits now often last for several hours -- they used to be deleted within minutes, even when made in the wee hours of the morning. I think that the Wickedpedians use audible automatic alarms to inform them when particular articles are being tampered with.
.
Labels: Cartoons, Cheri Yecke #2, Internet censorship (new #2), Wikipedia (new #1)
12 Comments:
> I invite my supporters to help me wage jihad against these control freaks. <
Do you actually think you have supporters?
Congratulations on being banned from editing Wikipedia, Larry!
You lousy worthless piece of crap, in trying to justify their discrimination against my blog, those evil Wickedpedian control freaks said that my blog is "crappy" whereas the blogs of Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers are "reputable." That is outragenous.
> Yes, I am a big asshole for asserting my rights.<
You are not asserting your rights. You are only proving your insanity.
> in trying to justify their discrimination against my blog, those evil Wickedpedian control freaks said that my blog is "crappy" whereas the blogs of Ding Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers are "reputable." That is outragenous. <
Not "outragenous" (sic), actually quite reasonable. Your comments are loaded with childish language as is demonstrated in this thread.
Kevin said...
> Congratulations on being banned from editing Wikipedia, Larry! <
We knew it would happen. The pathetic cretin still doesn't understand why this keeps happening! He thinks that it they are afraid of his "superior logic and debating skills". He sure hasn't demonstrated them here.
Assorted hypocrites here continue taking advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my efforts to fight censorship on the Internet.
< these two BVD-clad bloggers >
It seems we have another scoop here -- not only Elsberry, but also PZ Myers wear BVDs. Previously undisclosed, AFAIK.
Given that "BVD" is a registered trademark of Fruit of the Loom, Inc., I hope that you are being properly compensated for these free plugs of their product.
Larry Brayed...
> Assorted hypocrites here continue taking advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my efforts to fight censorship on the Internet. <
Attempting to screw up a useful and well written resource because they will not reduce themselves to your level has nothing to do with censorship.
It appears that your inevitable mental breakdown has now occurred. You were crazy enough before but now you have been proving it to everyone.
Anyone who doesn't believe that Larry is certifiably insane should check his braying in the discussion sections of Wikipedia.
Larry,
Sit back, calm down and take a deep breath. Even Don Quixote didn't wear a clown suit and a "kick me" sign when jousting at windmills.
I wish you still had the intellect to realize how stupid you are making yourself look with your latest activities.
Ain't none too many o' them there forks in yer family tree, now is there, Larry.
He is an embarrasment to the family.
Shemp Fafarman said...
>> He is an embarrasment to the family. <<
Well, to be fair, Larry'd be an embarrassment to the Hilton family.
You don't know much do you? You talk about "protecting your rights" and all that crap, but the First Amendment doesn't apply everywhere. Wikipedia is a little bit different than a street corner. You have about as many rights to mess up Wikipedia as you do to run naked through a shopping mall. NONE.
Post a Comment
<< Home