Seasoned editor does an experiment to find out how newbies get treated. Cue Kww being WP:BITEy about it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_...Posted Apr 6, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC
4623
en.wikipedia.org
This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The ability to drive out fresh blood is one of the most important ways that the established editors keep a grip on their pages.
Wikipedia, like tumblr, is designed from the ground up to allow those with cluster-b personality disorders to rule with an iron fist.
23
... I can see how tumblr allows cluster-bs to get attention, but how are they "ruling" anything?
8
Because those of us who aren't inveterate drama whores tend to just "NOPE" out of situations and/or give up completely on Wikipedia.
8
That's a cool experiment.
Of course someone would get their panties in a bunch
12
A perfect example of why proper encyclopedias are not written by mobs.
14
There is nothing "biting" about delivering rubbish to the dustbin. In fact, rubbish must be disposed of. As it is, Wikipedia is forced to maintain many disgusting articles that fly in the face of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. We must work harder to delete more rubbish, lest our encylopaedia become a blog. I fear it is already too far down that road. This proposal is misguided. Rubbish is rubbish, no matter who creates it. It must be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The reason that Wikipedia has stalled at 3 million or so articles is not because this is the sum total of all human knowledge, but because this is the limit which the burgeoning bureaucracy will allow.
The entire "WP" namespace should be deleted, all admins fired, and the project kicked into a growth phase again. It worked before. Wikipedia is not working now.
Edit: Forgot the quote
6
If we're on the topic of RGloucester, from his push to create an MOS noticeboard:
The concept of "experts" is elitist and antithetical to the project. You have no expertise here. RGloucester — ☎ 3:37 pm, Today (UTC−4)
That crazy Marxist is the epitome of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. RG bites everyone who disagrees with them, new and old, and is just an all-around drama whore. Perhaps RG aspires to be the new Ryulong?
7
I think you've hit the nail on the head when you call RGloucester the epitome of all that is wrong with wikipedia. RG, and editors like him (Ryulong, etc) do far more damage to wikipedia as a source of knowledge that a hundred "vandals". If some middle middleschooler edits Plato's page to say that he was a "poopy doodoo head who was dumb", it doesn't matter-most of these edits are so ridiculous that it's blatantly obvious that the information is false, and in any case, Wikipedia has dozens of bots to revert that kind of vandalism. On the other hand, RG (and editors like him), are smart enough to twist things just enough that they sound reasonable (if only from a certain angle). The only way to fix the issue is to ban them permanently, which will never happen because the entire system has been set up to exclude obvious vandals (which,again, are easily handled by bots, and act as a boogieman/excuse to crack down harder on editors that go against the grain) and reasonable human beings.
5
Turns out the original CSD nomination of the editor's wife's article years before was done by... a 10-year old child:
" User:StevenD99 was 10 years old when he nominated Calton weavers for speedy deletion as a blatant and obvious hoax. User:jomillsjo did not mean to insult the child specifically, but to censure all editors in general who engage in bullying newcomers. "
We have - or at least had - 10-year-olds patrolling Wikipedia for bad articles, folks.
As noted in the discussion, there are no qualifications needed for page patrolling or slapping CSDs on an article, unlike for Articles for Creation. This seems backwards.
5
Amazing. That about sums up wikipedia.
3
As someone who not only got bit three times, but got TOPIC BANNED early on... yah, they have a bit of a biting problem.
4
This is my favorite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Troisier&oldid=655041290
It's just an infobox including name, date of birth, death, and profession. And that's it. lol.
Troll-tastic! Outstanding in its craptacularity! Given the infobox wars there, I'm surprised it took more than one minute to get tagged.
3
But I don't see anything wrong with it, honestly. The information is correct. In the old days, this was acceptable: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pomme&oldid=18085
3
Everyone (who speaks French) knows that pommes are notable.
There is nothing in the example I cited that indicates notability.
I have no sympathy for a person who will not even take the time to write one sentence about why the person is notable. If they intend to do it later, well then, wait to create the article when you have a spare minute or two to type once damn sentence discussing notability. I can understand not including citations, but not even one frickin' sentence? It's borderline rude.
3
It's hilarious that a few editors now want the user sanctioned for sock puppetry even though it conforms to wiki policy and he took appropriate steps to make sure it was linked to his email etc. What a bureaucratic death trap. It is as if some editors are only there to watch and make any attempt to point fingers at tiny policy violations even in good faith.
ohhhh that is the Matt Dillahunty treatment.
Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that.