I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

New Wickedpedia Scandal

A news article says,

Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.

Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.
.
Revealed after an uber-admin called "Durova" used it in an attempt to enforce the quixotic ban of a longtime contributor, this secret mailing list seems to undermine the site's famously egalitarian ethos. At the very least, the list allows the ruling clique to push its agenda without scrutiny from the community at large. But clearly, it has also been used to silence the voice of at least one person who was merely trying to improve the encyclopedia's content.

"I've never seen the Wikipedia community as angry as they are with this one," says Charles Ainsworth, a Japan-based editor who's contributed more feature articles to the site than all but six other writers. "I think there was more hidden anger and frustration with the 'ruling clique' than I thought and Durova's heavy-handed action and arrogant refusal to take sufficient accountability for it has released all of it into the open."

Kelly Martin, a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, leaves no doubt that this sort of surreptitious communication has gone on for ages. "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old," Martin told us via phone, from outside Chicago. "It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."

Meanwhile, Jimbo Wales has told the community that all this is merely a tempest in a teacup. As he points out, the user that Durova wrongly banned was reinstated after a mere 75 minutes. But it would seem that Jimbo has done his best to suppress any talk of the secret mailing list.

Whatever the case, many longtime editors are up-in-arms. And the site's top administrators seem more concerned with petty site politics than with building a trustworthy encyclopedia. "The problem with Wikipedia is that, for so many in the project, it's no longer about the encyclopedia," Martin wrote in a recent blog post. "The problem is that Wikipedia's community has defined itself not in terms of the encyclopedia it is supposedly producing, but instead of the people it venerates and the people it abhors."

I don't think that Wikipedia can heal itself -- I think it has passed the point of no return. Probably most people with any integrity have already left that organization. Most Wikipedia administrators and contributors are volunteers and they are not paid to put up with that crap.

There was a dispute over whether to add of Of Pandas and People -- the book that Judge Jones said could not even be mentioned in Dover classrooms -- to the Wikipedia list of "banned books." I suggested that the book be listed along with a note that the entry was disputed and links to external websites where the dispute was discussed or debated. My suggestion was rejected. The Wikipedia control freaks completely rewrote the whole banned books article to avoid listing Of Pandas and People.

As I pointed out in a previous post, a public school district went so far as to block Wikipedia on all of the district's computers.

Wikipedia's day has passed.
.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> There was a dispute over whether to add of Of Pandas and People -- the book that Judge Jones said could not even be mentioned in Dover classrooms -- to the Wikipedia list of "banned books." <

But since it has not been banned, the Wikipedia editors were wise enough to stop your self-proclaimed "edit war".

Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You stupid dunghill -- the issue was not whether it was banned -- the issue was that the answer to that question was under dispute.

Since my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting your crap, the only thing I can do is wish each day that you will very soon drop dead and go to hell so that you will stop cluttering up my blog.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> You stupid dunghill -- the issue was not whether it was banned <

You pathetic cretin -- in determining whether something should go on a list of banned books is indeed whether or not it has been banned. In this case, it has not.

> the issue was that the answer to that question was under dispute. <

No rational person disputes it.

> Since my no-censorship policy prevents me from deleting your crap <

If you actually followed your no-censorship policy, you would not have banned ViW and I would not be here filling in for him.

> the only thing I can do is wish each day that you will very soon drop dead and go to hell <

I do not have such wishes for you. If you were gone we would lose a great source of entertainment.

Recently you have been cluttering up your blog with increasingly nonsensical posts.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Lord, how toxic! Don't you realize how such statements corrode yourself?

< the only thing I can do is wish each day ... >

... for health and blessings for myself and those I love ... and even for those whom I may not like very much right now.


Try it -- you'll feel better.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:55:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU, you stupid dunghill, in many disputes there are people on one or both sides who think that the other side is totally wrong. That doesn't mean that the dispute does not exist. What I proposed is a sensible solution to many of the disputes that plague Wikipedia -- just enter the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This would not be a solution in every case -- for example, in the case of the claim that Judge "the workman" Jones approved Ding Elsberry's text comparison program for the purpose of determining the extent to which two different texts contain the same ideas, I would not have accepted such a solution because no evidence was presented to support the claim. However, my solution would work in many cases. Such a solution would greatly enhance the credibility of Wikipedia by (1) opening Wikipedia to a wider range of views and (2) opening to challenge the controversial views of Wiki administrators that are now not even identified as controversial views. Because an online encyclopedia can instantly link to external sites, it does not have to look like a printed encyclopedia. One of the great things about the Internet is this ability to instantly link to external sites.

Anyway, dunghill, if Wickedpedia is being run in the right way, then why is it in such deepshit trouble? Open editing is not the only cause of Wickedpedia's problems -- obviously.

Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> in many disputes there are people on one or both sides who think that the other side is totally wrong. That doesn't mean that the dispute does not exist. <

There are people who believe that meteors come from inside the atmosphere, that the Moon landings were staged in a Hollywood studio, and that the World Almanac and Los Angeles Times are produced and distributed by extraterrestrials. (Oh yes. That was you, wasn't it?)

Any dispute with such assholes is not worthy of mention in a scholarly article.

> What I proposed is a sensible solution to many of the disputes that plague Wikipedia <

Enter the alternate theory that the Earth is flat? Where would it end?

> links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. <

This is what you really want - links to this blog. Sorry, Larry. As long as you keep your childish insults going, it will not happen. Nobody will ever mistake this blog for a serious source of information.

> I would not have accepted such a solution <

Nobody cares but you.

> Such a solution would greatly enhance the credibility of Wikipedia <

Nothing you have suggested would enhance the credibility of Wikipedia but by rejecting your crap, Wikipedia has enhanced their credibility.

> Because an online encyclopedia can instantly link to external sites <

But there is no need to link to ones that are non-notable and crappy.

> One of the great things about the Internet is this ability to instantly link to external sites. <

But one must be careful what they link to or they will turn their own site into useless garbage.

> if Wickedpedia is being run in the right way, then why is it in such deepshit trouble? <

Conversely, since Wikipedia is not in deepshit trouble on this planet, it must be run in the right way.

The bottom line is that as long as you call people "fathead", "dunghill", and "sleazy" in your articles, you will never be linked to by any serious blog, you mindless cretin.

Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. <

But then how do you trolls survive? According to ViW, you live on beer and potato chips.

Anyway it looks like you realized that you were losing the argument.

Sunday, December 16, 2007 6:50:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Anyway it looks like you realized that you were losing the argument. <<<<<

"Losing the argument"? What, an argument like this:

Nobody cares but you.

So the Discovery Institute doesn't care that Wickedpedia is using Ding Elsberry's stupid text comparison program to attack the DI's claim that the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU. Yeah, right.

You are so full of living crap that it is coming out of your ears, dunghill.

Sunday, December 16, 2007 7:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

>>>>>> Nobody cares but you. <<<<<<

> So the Discovery Institute doesn't care that Wickedpedia is using Ding Elsberry's stupid text comparison program to attack the DI's claim that the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was ghostwritten by the ACLU. Yeah, right. <

If you truly believe that is what I said, you must have flunked reading in the first grade.

Your ability to irrationally project a statement from one context to another is unmatched.

Monday, December 17, 2007 6:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Then what did you mean, dunghill?

I might as well delete your comments because you are just cluttering up this blog without saying anything.

Monday, December 17, 2007 8:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Auctor ad Herennium Jr. said...

Ahh, what rhetoric!

There appears to have been a mini-revival of interest in classical Roman rhetoric.

Monday, December 17, 2007 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> I might as well delete your comments because you are just cluttering up this blog without saying anything. <

If you deleted every comment you didn't understand, there would be nothing left on the blog.

Monday, December 17, 2007 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

What is there to understand, dunghill? ViU said nothing.

Monday, December 17, 2007 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And yet one more time Larry fails to mention the very relevant fact that he was banned from Wikipedia.

It's not as if Larry doesn't have an ax to grind here.

Monday, December 17, 2007 1:52:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> And yet one more time Larry fails to mention the very relevant fact that he was banned from Wikipedia <<<<<<

You stupid fathead -- that only supports my argument against Wickedpedia. Did you notice that I have been blocked indefinitely merely on the suspicion that I am using one or more accounts abusively? BTW, it is possible to post under different identities on Wikipedia without changing your account -- just don't log in before posting or don't call up your account when posting. Anyway, being blocked is not necessarily a problem -- I have ways to get around the blocks. One of the big problems with Internet censorship is that ideas as well as people are blocked.

>>>>>> It's not as if Larry doesn't have an ax to grind here. <<<<<<

Of course I have an ax to grind, you ninny.

Monday, December 17, 2007 2:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> ViU said nothing.<

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it wasn't said. Hector obviously understood it. I am sure that everyone except you and your sock puppets understood what I said.

> Did you notice that I have been blocked indefinitely merely on the suspicion that I am using one or more accounts abusively? <

No. It was based on the knowledge that you were using them abusively.

> BTW, it is possible to post under different identities on Wikipedia without changing your account <

Which you know from experience, therefore proving that Wikipedia was being reasonable.

> I have ways to get around the blocks. <

But your smell remains and so you are always detected.

> One of the big problems with Internet censorship is that ideas as well as people are blocked. <

Then how is it that you explain the censorship that you practice?

Monday, December 17, 2007 3:05:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> No. It was based on the knowledge that you were using them abusively. <<<<<

You worthless dunghill, Wickedpedia said "suspected." And Wickedpedia couldn't even name the other accounts I am supposedly suspected of using. I have only one account at Wickedpedia.

Monday, December 17, 2007 4:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> And Wickedpedia couldn't even name the other accounts I am supposedly suspected of using. <

You have even admitted your sockpuppetry. What is your point? You admit it but others can't prove it?

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are we piling on? Obviously Larry is unable to defend himself.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:17:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home