Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 2, Interesting) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 16:39 (#K7NM) I suspect they'll have better luck deterring this nonsense if they actively shame the companies who pay for/execute the biased bullshit.They'll never win the cat-and-mouse if they just ban accounts. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 21:54 (#K8JV) It isn't just paid editing firms they have to worry about. Wikipedia's policies, in general, are entirely untenable, requiring overwhelming force of numbers that just can't be sustained. Citizendium did a better job than I can, explaining why Wikipedia doesn't work:* no coherent narrative* disconnected grab-bags of factoids* degraded by minor ill-judged tweaks* intelligent laymen are often mistaken* "squaters" always win* blatant and shameless levels of bias* Vandalism is a headache* part anarchy, part mob rule* disputes sometimes go on interminablyetc.http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:24 (#KKW7) I get what they're saying, but here's a random topic I thought to compare:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/AK-47 (nope, HTTPS isn't available)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47Wikipedia's article is not only far more complete, it's also better written! The Citizendium article over-emphasises comparison against the M-16, and is openly biased in so doing:The AK-74M fires the same ammunition, but is made of lighter and more rugged materials and features a side-folding stock.But no mention is made of the advantages of the M-16.Citizendium have some interesting ideas, but I really can't see them getting anywhere near Wikipedia.More examples: there's no article (literally nothing) on OpenCL, for instance, or even CUDA! There's an article on the GPU, but it's absolutely laughable.This would be fine if Citizendium were a newcomer, but at this stage, it's not. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:51 (#KKY7) No, Citizendium hasn't turned-out well. Whatever the reason... lack of publicity, early policy mistakes, second-mover disadvantage, etc., it's not going to challenge Wikipedia on equal terms. I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with their detailed tirade on why Wikipedia sucks, and firmly believe Wikipedia must either get saner policies or is going to implode and fall apart at some point. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP) I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-02 21:54 (#K8JV) It isn't just paid editing firms they have to worry about. Wikipedia's policies, in general, are entirely untenable, requiring overwhelming force of numbers that just can't be sustained. Citizendium did a better job than I can, explaining why Wikipedia doesn't work:* no coherent narrative* disconnected grab-bags of factoids* degraded by minor ill-judged tweaks* intelligent laymen are often mistaken* "squaters" always win* blatant and shameless levels of bias* Vandalism is a headache* part anarchy, part mob rule* disputes sometimes go on interminablyetc.http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:24 (#KKW7) I get what they're saying, but here's a random topic I thought to compare:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/AK-47 (nope, HTTPS isn't available)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47Wikipedia's article is not only far more complete, it's also better written! The Citizendium article over-emphasises comparison against the M-16, and is openly biased in so doing:The AK-74M fires the same ammunition, but is made of lighter and more rugged materials and features a side-folding stock.But no mention is made of the advantages of the M-16.Citizendium have some interesting ideas, but I really can't see them getting anywhere near Wikipedia.More examples: there's no article (literally nothing) on OpenCL, for instance, or even CUDA! There's an article on the GPU, but it's absolutely laughable.This would be fine if Citizendium were a newcomer, but at this stage, it's not. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:51 (#KKY7) No, Citizendium hasn't turned-out well. Whatever the reason... lack of publicity, early policy mistakes, second-mover disadvantage, etc., it's not going to challenge Wikipedia on equal terms. I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with their detailed tirade on why Wikipedia sucks, and firmly believe Wikipedia must either get saner policies or is going to implode and fall apart at some point. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP) I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:24 (#KKW7) I get what they're saying, but here's a random topic I thought to compare:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/AK-47 (nope, HTTPS isn't available)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47Wikipedia's article is not only far more complete, it's also better written! The Citizendium article over-emphasises comparison against the M-16, and is openly biased in so doing:The AK-74M fires the same ammunition, but is made of lighter and more rugged materials and features a side-folding stock.But no mention is made of the advantages of the M-16.Citizendium have some interesting ideas, but I really can't see them getting anywhere near Wikipedia.More examples: there's no article (literally nothing) on OpenCL, for instance, or even CUDA! There's an article on the GPU, but it's absolutely laughable.This would be fine if Citizendium were a newcomer, but at this stage, it's not. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:51 (#KKY7) No, Citizendium hasn't turned-out well. Whatever the reason... lack of publicity, early policy mistakes, second-mover disadvantage, etc., it's not going to challenge Wikipedia on equal terms. I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with their detailed tirade on why Wikipedia sucks, and firmly believe Wikipedia must either get saner policies or is going to implode and fall apart at some point. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP) I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 15:51 (#KKY7) No, Citizendium hasn't turned-out well. Whatever the reason... lack of publicity, early policy mistakes, second-mover disadvantage, etc., it's not going to challenge Wikipedia on equal terms. I do, however, whole-heartedly agree with their detailed tirade on why Wikipedia sucks, and firmly believe Wikipedia must either get saner policies or is going to implode and fall apart at some point. Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP) I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.
Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1) by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP) I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.