Dealing with Wikipedia at a domain level.

[japheth]

Some links for interested parties to make themselves heard about the deletion of the JWASM page.

I only ask this much, even though these people acted like a bunch of arseh*les I would ask that if and when you comment on their talk pages that you do not vandalise anything ...

It's very bad style to talk in such a way about persons who aren't member of this board and cannot defend themselves. There was no "dirty work" or anything, they just removed some parts of the mess you created. Please stop this!

[hutch--]

In a members forum like this we ensure you are entitled to your opinion, even if other members disagree with it where in the environment of the persons mentioned, you are not and will be attacked for doing so. Feel free to become a Wikipedia editor and learn the joys first hand of dealing with imbeciles.  :P

[hutch--]

Just to confirm the virtue of server blocking Wikipedia, a couple of weeks after raising the copyright issue with the internal Wikipedia mechanism to deal with the problem, I got a reply back which recognised the copyright violation but isolated Wikipedia from the actions of their editors and administrators. Bottom line is if the can get away witrh stealing your property they will and if you raise the issue with them they cover their arse by passing the buck to the collection of anonymous d*ckheads tearing around the place making a mess of it.

Same old bullshit as anything else GPL, take anything they can get by any means they can and sh*t on you in the process. Editor Apache is the solution using the ".htaccess" method.

[MichaelW]

This could explain why they implemented such an apparently idiotic editing policy.

[hutch--]

i recently watched a movie that dealt with how Wikipedia was started and how it runs and it had a number of interesting concepts in it. The well known defects of the "anyone can edit anything" policy means that brain surgery can be edited by the dustman and the idea of "no original research" means the place has no content but another interesting concept was raised that made sense.

Wikipedia is another form of online "Virtual Reality" where anonymous people join a website, undertake a range of roles, develop a community and construct a bureaucracy with a predefined pecking order and an infinitely redefinable set of rules cast in a shorthand for practitioners to communicate among themselves as they try and construct their "Virtual World".

Now this would be fine if it was represented as what it effectively is but unfortunately it is being represented as a source of knowledge under the name of an online encyclopaedia. In days of old an encyclopaedia was constructed on the basis of available expertise so issues of brain surgery went to brain surgeons, rocket science went to rocket scientists and chinese floral arrangements went to such folks as had expertise in such fields and the content could be trusted to some extent as it eminated from people who had some track record in the filed they addressed.

One can only hope that when Jimbo has his next testicle uplift operation that the surgeon performing the operation is reading how to do it online from a Wikipedia entry that has been edited by an anonymous Wikipedia editor with the end result that he ends up with lumps in his throat.  :P

[dedndave]

interesting comment about "virtual society"
we have one, of sorts, here as well
one of the first such societies i had experince with was yahoo games
primarily, i play euchre and spades - card games
but, i have also played their chess, pool, literati (like scrabble)

in these game rooms, they have "lobbies" where those not involved in games (and sometimes, those who are) may communicate
it's kind of like a kiosk bulletin board area or chat room - all players can see what anyone types instantly
yahoo has pretty much left these "places" unpoliced
it seems the absolute worst come out in some people - many people, in fact
swearing - name calling - you name it - lol
even some of the women could teach sailors how to talk
it is interesting to see how people treat each other, when there are no consequences to their actions
this is similar to what you are talking about - because there are no consequences for providing incorrect information
the yahoo game lobbies introduce an additional dynamic in that what is typed shows up instantly

[DarkWolf]

Ubuntu wiki suffers from the same problem.

Individuals that have firmly stated that they do not want to work with you, edit your content according to their social agenda.
They cite the "spirit of Ubuntu" and the Creative Commons license as the proof that they can do this.

There is no actual citation on the wiki site as to which license the content falls under.
The main Ubuntu site has a legal page that cites content is either GPL or Creative Commons (but not which is which).
Both GPL and Creative Commons recognize the right of the "Original Author", someone that the wiki editors ignore.
Whatever council that Ubuntu/Canonical uses approves of and defends the wiki editors. (2 out of the five have firmly stated this).

They don't want to participate or cooperate or collaborate; despite that their guidelines / rules specifically state otherwise.
You can't point this out, then they claim *you* are the one not cooperating with *them*.
You add content they do not have then 3 years later someone comes along and rewrites your content for their agenda (and one editor clearly stated it was a personal agenda).
No one wanted to help or made a serious offer to and then after 2 years inactivity, they form an actual group and after one year of their own inactivity they edit someone else's content.
They have yet to produce anything I haven't already done and are actually trying to do work I have already completed if they had bothered to actually read my content or try to work with me.

So I deleted everything and took back my work and now they cry foul and how I am not a team player or violated the license or some other crap.
There was a wiki war for a time where I deleted the page and they kept restoring it.
Appealingly when you "delete" a ubuntu wiki page it is not actually deleted and you can revert to an earlier revision.
Deletion is a revision, I don't know who came up with that crap.
But the wiki is full of edits for their own agenda.
I tried to explain to a so-called team leader about how refreshes are not redirects and shouldn't be used as such.
The Italian wiki didn't have problems with redirects and used them specifically because people were notified of the redirect.
But in the US the wiki would rather use a refresh so that you are not notified of the redirect.
After I told him about this, the wiki instructions was edited so that a user doesn't know about redirects and can only use refresh as a method of redirection.

They don't like it when you shine a public light on their crap.
I complained about their actions directly on the ubuntu forum thread that I made for my content.
Where one of the editors had posted but not discussed anything with me.
And apparently that means I am the one that doesn't know how to communicate.

This is why I put all wikis, facebook, twitter and other assorted crap as Social Engineering websites.

[hutch--]

 :bg :U

[hutch--]

 :bg

WIKIPEDIA REVISITED.

It was with a sense of Deja Vu that I bothered to have a look at the pages that yielded so much argument within the Wikipedia organisation and 9 months down the track they are still the crippled piles of crap that they left them as back then and no-one has fixed them or extended them in the mean time.

It is clearly the case that Wikipedia is not a sound vehicle to support programming in general or assembler programming in particular and that it is good practice not to put sensible technical work into the hands of imbeciles who neither know what they are doing or how to properly use it in an encyclopaedia.

If you have code or technical reference that you want to share with other programmers, publish it on an independent site that cannot be damaged by idiots and engage the assistance of the informal Wikipedia editor "Apache" where you block Wikipedia from linking to your site. This effectively forces them to get off their arse and write their own instead of bandwith theft of other peoples work.

Editor "Apache" is your friend.  :U

[DarkWolf]

I haven't visited the ubuntu wiki page I created for a while now.

But last I saw they had reverted it to just prior to deletion and locked it with an ACL so I can no longer edit my own content.

I don't know how the subscriptions work with regard tot he ACL but if they work as normal then noone else has bothered to edit the pages either because I haven't been receiving notices of page updates.

Nice to know that they needed my work so badly that they can't be bothered to work on any content either.

[hutch--]

It sounds like a similar problem, non technical "editors" (IE they may be able to type) exercising power over technical contributors by means of their wiki software.

RE: Wikipedia just on the 1 year anniversary of their last fiasco have yet to fix the MASM page errors and the WASM page is still nonsense. for those with an appropriate sense of humour, the criterion for removing topics in Wikipedia was notability yet by its own criterion, Wikipedia is not notable. Not only does it have no demonstrable expertise or review capacity but its rules exclude them ever having any expertise. It is a relatively recent internet phenomenon (post 2000) that is subject to anonymous idiot fringe editing on any subject and the better quality work done by competent contributors is progressively being vandalised by their own internal loonie tune fringe.

Its a variation of the "Revenge Of The Nerds" where any idiot can damage anything they like and rely on their buddies with administrative access to their PHP software to cover their arse when they get caught doing something stupid.

This is the bunch of cockroaches that turned assembler reference in Wikipedia to trash.

The instigator of the deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads

The seconder who also tried to delete half of the masm page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OrangeDog

His busom buddy covering his arse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarekOfVulcan

Their partner in crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit

The administrator who did the dirty work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MLauba

One can but wish HAPPY ANNIVERSARY to this list of anonymous cowards hiding behind their bullsh*t nick names playing power games. Editor "APACHE" serves you well here.  :bg

[DarkWolf]

Outside of this technical issue....

Most topics I research on Wikipedia is flagged a stub (never to be expanded) or to be move into or out of an article (never to be moved) or does not reflect neutral bias (never to be rewritten). Meanwhile I am waiting for the articles to be fleshed out and have more detail than a twenty line review or heaven forbid an author write more than 140 characters.

If you want to actually learn something or how to do something, go to your public library.

[hutch--]

I read an interview with Jimbo yesterday and it looks like change will be forced on them with some form of review to be applied to article content. Over time I have seen the quality of articles go up then down as the idiot fringe run around vandalising articles according to their own hobby horse. As long as it has the multiple problems of badly written conflicting rules, lack of reference to each topic's "talk" page and is at the mercy of a bunch of dimwits let loose to modify pages any way they like, it will continue to go downhill.

The problems are compounded by groupings of administrators and associated editors playing power games and this abuse needs to be stopped if they ever intend to progress past the kiddies games and produce a viable online reference source. In programming terms Wikipedia is insignificant and the often good work done in the past by a wide range of editors has progressively been damaged by technical illiterates massaging their own egos by modifying technical data that they don't even understand.

Something that does need to be changed is the collective editing decision making criteria, a Wikipedia editor's conference amounts to little more than a verbal mastibating competition where the conclusions reflect little else than a consensus of ignorance. For any category of information they need to be able to attract people who have the appropriate expertise, doctors writing medical articles, lawyers writing legal articles, techos writing technical articles in their fields so that there is some reasonable association between the content and the evidence to support it.

The blanket prohibition on "Original Research" also needs to redefined as the current criterion excludes any content that does not have a direct internet link to support it. This amounts to systemic bandwidth theft by Wikipedia as they choose to provide content at someone else expense instead of providing their own.

[DarkWolf]

For any category of information they need to be able to attract people who have the appropriate expertise, doctors writing medical articles, lawyers writing legal articles, techos writing technical articles in their fields so that there is some reasonable association between the content and the evidence to support it.

Problem in my case was that the editors in question claimed to be experts in the related field and yet contradicted themselves. One indicated they would not behave this way professionally at their place of work yet he did with me. And he couldn't see the inherit contradiction.

The blanket prohibition on "Original Research" also needs to redefined as the current criterion excludes any content that does not have a direct internet link to support it. This amounts to systemic bandwidth theft by Wikipedia as they choose to provide content at someone else expense instead of providing their own.

This had bothered me not just in the bandwidth sense but also the notion that an original or "new" idea is not allowed without some collaborating link. That makes no sense, anyone could write and post a webpage and then write the article pointing to their own page as a reference (this probably happens quite often and did in my case by one ubuntu wiki "editor"). Not only that but would this mean that "innovation" is prohibited ? At some point there would have to be new information.

[MichaelW]

And what about the problem with ignorant editors labeling what they should be able to recognize as statements of obvious fact, as Original Research.