"Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion"

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Jason Scott's The Great Failure of Wikipedia (the "Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006") has recently appeared in the web and garnered considerable attention. Jason can hardly be called anything but a disinterested witness. The quote, here, is only a portion of a piece ("Wikipedia: J. S. on Essajay") with many wide ranging and intelligent observations on the Wikipedia phenomenon:

What is going on in all this, and which I am fearful is going to be missed, is how Wikipedia's Value System functions. "Honor Killings", "Circumcision", "Dog Shows", "Child Soldiers", "Abortion" ... there are thousands of events and values that people engage in every day that are completely inscrutable to a good portion of the rest of the people on the Earth. Sometimes you can see the logic and decide it's just not your cup of joe, but other times you see things that are allowed in one jurisdiction that would have "those people" turned into organ donors anywhere else.

Finally, the massive Wiki Behavioral Problem begins (only begins) to receive its due attention. The effects are pouring out of Wikipedia's virtual anti-Oz into the real world. It isn't becoming a problem. It has long been one.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...it's better to shoot first and ask questions later..."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

According to User:Kosebamse the following is from a Wikipedian IRC thread:

Raul654: oh, and snowspinner, I've come to a conclusion
Raul654: making policy on wikipedia is hard
Raul654: because there are people who oppose any common sense measures
JamesF: Raul> Indeed.
Snowspinner: Yes. I came to that conclusion as well.
Raul654: I have decided that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later ;)
Snowspinner: Cool.
Snowspinner: I'm in that camp too now.
Raul654: seriously
Raul654: don't worry about making common sense policy
Raul654: just do things with common sense
Raul654: and wait for policy to catch up

This exchange has been widely quoted throughout the web at least since 2005.

Raul654 (Mark Pellegrini) is a senior member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. According to WikiTruth, "Philip "Snowspinner" Sandifer is a Ph.D. student in English, specializing in comics studies, at the University of Florida, and a managing editor of ImageTexT, a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the study of comic strips and animated cartoons."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Phil Sandifer (a.k.a. Snowspinner) is a Wikipedia Administrator who has all but grown famous for this quote from his user page, listed under the heading "I'm not a goddamned inclusionist":

All we are saying is give jackbooted fascism a chance.

If this seems like an inappropriate philosophy for a Florida-registered non-profit organization it will apparently have to be lived with. According to Wikitruth's Snowspinner page:

Snowie is much loved by Jimbo, who has declared him his kind of admin...

Jimbo, of course, is Jimmy Wales the appointed-for-life CEO of Wikipedia.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

'...the "democratic" people's MAFIA...'

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Steve Rubel, at Micro Persuasion, upset more than a few Wikipedians and self-professed apathetic-types, when he wrote an article declaring Wikipedia to be King Disruptor III (after Microsoft and Google):

History is about to repeat itself. A successor to Google's throne is waiting in the wings - it's Wikipedia, King Disruptor III. Like its predecessors, Wikipedia is powerful because it provides access to largely accurate information that can be hard to find. This king, however, is unlike any other because it operates in a completely democratic way. It's run by the people, without any grand financial ambitions. This doesn't mean its rule will be perceived solely as a benevolent one, however.

Already, Wikipedia instills a deeper fear than either Google or Microsoft did when they were at such a young age. [Go to complete article >>>]

At least one reader found the piece to be prescient, however:

I AGREE WITH YOU STEVE RUBEL, COMPLETELY. My best regards and
congratulations for your admirable and CLEAR vision.WIKIPEDIA is it: a "democratic" TIRANY. Very, very, very dangerous. Even more than you described. Too much more!But I admire your courage; and I am really curious how and where did you get it to wrote such an article. Are you not afraid?!... I am very surprised!Wikipedia is a people's tyranny. Jesus Christ was also killed by a people's tyranny. It's the more dangerous type of tyranny.Well... to whom who it may concern: think about that and DEEPLY research Wikipedia structure: the Wikipedia administrators (the "democratic" people's MAFIA), the sysop powers, and so on, and so on...Maybe I am
to[o] frontal, but maybe I know what I am saying.

My best regards Steve Rub-El,Wallis.

Posted by: Sir Wallis Monday, December 12, 2005 at 09:12 PM

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...feel that they are immune from accountability."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Daniel Brandt's battles with Wikipedia are well known. The end of his tenure as an editor seems to have been entirely occupied with attempting to have his Wikipedia bio page removed. The following is an excerpt from his recent letter to Wikimedia's legal counsel, Bradford A. Patrick. The letter appears on Brandt's Wikipedia Watch site:

April 23, 2006

Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
Fowler White Boggs Banker
501 E. Kennedy
Blvd., Suite 1700
Tampa, FL 33602-5239
bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com
Tel: 813-228-7411
Fax: 813-229-8313


Dear Mr. Patrick:

I am writing to you because you are the attorney for Wikimedia Foundation. This letter should be interpreted as a formal notice made to the Foundation.

For six months I have been defamed and / or had my privacy invaded by agents of the Foundation. This has occurred primarily, but not exclusively, on these pages:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Daniel_Brandt

* * *

I am prepared to show that certain administrators, some of whom remain anonymous despite efforts to identify them, have contributed to a situation where much of the material related to me amounts to defamation and/or invasion of privacy. I further contend that there is evidence of unchecked hostility and maliciousness on the part of some editors and administrators. An overview of this pattern of behavior is available at www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html.

* * *

I cannot answer my detractors as a Wikipedia user, because administrators have blocked me indefinitely. This was primarily due to their perception of a legal threat from me. This "no legal threats" policy is inappropriate in a civil society, one purpose of which is to provide civil remedies under the rule of law. It causes the Foundation's editors and administrators to feel that they are immune from accountability. [Go to the complete letter >>>]

Brandt has also been branded a spammer for redirecting links from Wikipedia (originally to his Wikipedia Watch page cited above: www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) to the Wikipedia Review homepage. Again, this does not meet any known definition of spam (see: Wikipedia and the Question of LinkSpam) but an angry Wikipedia hive does not scrupple at mere facts. He pulled a fast one and that's spam enough!

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits..."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

According to his Wikipedia bio, "Warren Boroson (born January 22, 1935) is an American author, journalist with the Daily Record, and syndicated financial columnist. He has written over 20 books, including Keys to Investing in Mutual Funds and How to Buy a House for Nothing (or Little) Down. His most recent book is The Reverse Mortgage Advantage : The Tax-Free, House Rich Way to Retire Wealthy! . His columns are syndicated to 200 Gannett newspapers." Perhaps the distinction of having his bio appear in Wikipedia was what attracted him to give editing a try. The resulting column ("Wikipedia site filled with major mistakes"), in the Daily Record, begins as follows:

My only personal experience with Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, was decidedly unfavorable. I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge. [Go to complete column >>>]

It seems that Mr. Boroson's impressions went beyond Wikimistakes.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Jason Scott's The Great Failure of Wikipedia (the "Transcription of a presentation/speech given at Notacon 3, April 8, 2006") has recently appeared in the web and garnered considerable attention. Jason can hardly be called anything but a disinterested witness. The quote, here, is only a tiny portion of a long piece with many wide ranging and intelligent observations on the Wikipedia phenomenon:

I'd buy entirely that the Penny Arcade theory, which was normal person, plus anonymity, plus large audience, equals flaming f**kwad. That's the mirror that Wikipedia is presenting to us, and I think that we can learn quite a bit from it. [Go to the complete speech >>>]

This, of course, is precisely the point that underlies the first demand listed at the end of Wiki Watchdog's article Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?

Jason Scott's speech can also be downloaded in various audio formats from http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Joel Leyden, owner and editor of the Israel News Agency, and once a registered Wikipedia User, who went by the handle Israelbeach, hasn't much positive to say about the behavior at Wikipedia:

One realizes after being inside Wikipedia, behind the many so-called facts and figures, that there are networks within a network. Some good, some bad. A few respond with vicious relentless assaults that would make the Mafia proud. [Go to the article >>>]

Leyden is not exactly a disinterested reporter. He is a father's rights advocate who set out to assure that Wikipedia also presented that perspective in its coverage of related issues. The details are a bit fuzzy but many of his observations go beyond his own personal situation and are confirmed by countless others.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing..."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

Wiki Watchdog has been getting out a bit lately, learning how to get around within Wikipedia and where to go for insight into how others view the behavior of (rogue?) Wikipedians. There is a lot being said out there. The following excerpted from the chat-page Stumble Upon is among the many amusing comments:

by jaberwocky6669, Apr 25, [2006], 8:17am

What it truly means to be a wikipedian... "You can set up a user account, start editing everything you can find, enmesh yourself into the politics, the lameness, the backstabbing and moronity, and fight an ever-present desperate whirlpooling battle of contract law, miserable personalities and microscopic anal details. You can run out of additional information to add to subjects you know, and instead tunnel deep into shit you don't have the slightest notion about, using your intense knowledge of Wiki-jargon and gaming the system to fight every bastard who tries to change an article in a way you don't agree with, or which might have any information you're unable to garner in the first 5 matches of a Google search. After a while at this, you will look up from your screen, realize you have achieved an expansive case of Secretarial Spread, your computer surrounded with soda, chips and candy, and your hands twitching, wanting to reload the page to see if that meat-turd from Whocaresia dared question your changes to that article on that dead king that someone else is trying to have deleted... ...and congratulations, you are now a Wikipedian."... During my time at Wikipedia I never became embroiledin batttles or edit wars or any conflict. So don't assume that I am disappointed with Wikipedia because something happened to me that I didin't like. [Go to complete thread >>>]

The Watchdog will be mainly about the behavior of Wikipedians. There is clearly a serious problem in that regard, beginning with the idea that what occurs in the anti-Oz called Wikiworld is not to be properly scrutinized by those who the tornado left back in Kansas. At the same time, Wikiworld freely spills over its borders in its wolf-pack attacks on insufficiently wary real-world-ers. [see Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands? for just one instance.]


Also See:

• jaberwocky6669's Wikipedia User page;
• Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?.

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

"...pack psychology driven anarchy..."

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>

In the below Wikipedia "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" chat-thread older and wiser hands try to calm a newer User (the upper-case "U" indicating a registered Wikipedia user) who finds Wikipedia to consist of "pack psychology driven anarchy" (see: "Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#regarding_.22rejected
.22_arbitration_case_.22merecat.22

In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization that Wikipedia is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating, because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator. Prometheuspan 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the older hands are only that: older. They are most certainly not wiser, at least not by any definition that would be accepted outside of the anti-Oz of Wikiworld. It is the newer User, as of yet imperfectly assimilated into Wikiworld, who still retains a glimmer of reality-orientation.



Also see:

• Is Wikipedia Handing Out Your Browsing Information to Thousands?

Return to Witness Statements Index >>>