Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

Notes & Queries

JA: I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. Jon Awbrey 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

NR: My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board and a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.

NR: On the thought of what domain name to use: I think ~~MimboJimbo.com~~ (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)}

JA: I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources — though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement — but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. Jon Awbrey 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

PW: I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.

BK: There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a presentation of his work at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —Moulton 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- MyWikiBiz 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —Moulton 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

Well, I finished the video. It was really well done, and I wish I had the time to be able to put things like that together. Oh, and Lindsay Ahalt (53:45) sure is a cutie, but looks to have no natural sense of rhythm. (I say that just to prove I got through the whole video.) Here's my serious take-away: the feel-good YouTube collage we just watched is all about celebrating personal expression. And that's wonderful for something like the video art form. But it's horrendous for something like the creation of a reputable, accurate encyclopedia. That is Wikipedia's problem. Too many people are using it as a canvas for personal expression. -- MyWikiBiz 21:11, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Michael Wesch studies other cyberspace phenomena besides YouTube (as do many other academics). Judith Donath has studied cyberspace cultures for over a decade. We referenced one of her studies in the WV Ethics Project. What's important is the academic methods of study, not the particular corner of Cyberspace that any one study concentrates on. Part of the problem with W-R is that the reviews there lacked academic cojones, gravitas, or demeanor. —Moulton 21:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

DT: Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? Dtobias 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

Dan, you are hilarious. This ".org" thing of yours is like your Internet calling card, like the slashed "Z" of Zorro. If we're going to have free "play money" poker tournaments on the site, we should get the ".net" domain, so that we're in compliance with the UIGEA. (lol) -- MyWikiBiz 19:48, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

AJD: Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? Anthony 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Consider the Crowdsource

GK: The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- MyWikiBiz 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

JA: Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.

When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"
- That leads me to ask:
  - Is the crowd the source?
  - If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?

JA: That's about as far as I get for now. Jon Awbrey 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

PW: The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?

The Importance of Being Nathan

NR: I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)}

PW: Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.

NR: Okay, that works then. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Suggest we move to the "article"

GK: Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.

JA: For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. Jon Awbrey 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

GK: We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!

A word from Joe

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.Joehazelton 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

A lot of words from Blissyu2

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time.

Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.

Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on.

I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name.

Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. Blissyu2 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

It seems to me, Blissyu2, that you are looking for a site which is more amenable to what most people would call conspiracy theories than is Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think this is anything like what Greg has in mind.Proabivouac 22:31, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Given that you lied in your Poetlister investigation [1], I don't think that you have any credibility whatsoever. As I said, the main issue with Wikipedia Review was that it was overrun and that the people who control it now had nothing to do with it being created. This is the issue, not anything to do with conspiracy theories or not. While you're at it though, why don't you fix up your lies in your "investigation"? Blissyu2 16:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blissy, do you have a link to a page providing the variances and discrepancies between Proabiv's account of the PoetGuy Caper and your account? —Moulton 17:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

The above link proves it conclusively enough (unless the link doesn't work for you).

Proabivouac lied about my having created the Poetlister identity. I invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com. I did not create the page. Further, Classmates.com is a social networking site, like MySpace, that is meant to let you contact people you used to go to school with (it is quite good - you should try it). It isn't, as he implies, a way to create a fake identity. It doesn't even come up in Google. Proabivouac has been aware of the mistake for over a month, and has refused to change it. Proabivouac is aware that thousands of others have lied about me based on his lie, and that it is causing me significant real life problems. Proabivouac is fully aware that he could change it to a more correct statement and that it would not in any way change the Poetlister investigation - all it would do would be to stop the rubbishing of my name. I think, therefore, that rather than Proabivouac being interested in trying to expose truth, he is only interested in smearing my name.

As for the other issues, the fact of the matter is that Proabivouac doesn't prove anything. His links don't prove what he claims that they prove. The one and only thing that he proved was that the Taxwoman photo was used by a member of The boudoir. That link that proves that has now been removed. None of the other claims are backed up at all. They might be true, but they might not. This is the issue.

As for Poetlister being Taxwoman, we knew that from September 2007, when Encyclopaedia Dramatica proved it. I proved that evidence on Wikipedia Review, and on ED, in September 2007. I was slammed for it. Why am I now being slammed amidst lies started by Proabivouac that the opposite is true?

Proabviouc is not to be trusted. Someone who would lie on a major incident, and use it to smear someone else's names, is not someone who you wanted involved in a thing like this. He has had over a month to fix his errors, and has refused. Proabviouc needs to present his real name so that he can be sued for defamation of character. Blissyu2 19:10, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blissy, the first "correction" of your cited reference reads as follows:

At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Giselle Hillman. The name Giselle Hillman was given once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005.

Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper? My reading of this post by FT2 leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters. Have I misread FT2's analysis? —Moulton 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, as you write, "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com." Moulton 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Look at the link for G H at NamesDatabase (Classmates.com is a subsidiary of NamesDatabase): http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221. It says quite clearly "Referred By" as opposed to "Written By". I cannot believe that Proabviouc, or anyone else, could get confused as to the difference. It is a deliberate lie that it says "Written By". Blissyu2 23:13, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Um, User:Zordrac is me. LOL. I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992. I have said on many places that they are all the same person. Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian. There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me). However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review.

Yes, I was accused of being Poetlister. I am in Australia. My real life identity is available online. On my MySpace page you have links to 2 of my sisters, both of my parents, and a variety of other real life things. I have had an internet presence since 1992. Look up virtually anything to do with Port Arthur massacre and you will see me, since 1995 at least. On Lintilla (a talker) in 1995 I was telling people about Rob, and about his murderous plans. I don't know if you can find that, but I don't think that they ever wiped that. I said it in a few news groups too and in my original web site on Geocities (since hacked into by Julie in 2003 and wiped).

FT2 is either jumping to conclusions or is pretty dense. Why would I have a 16 years long internet presence when secretly I was a British civil servant? And people accuse me of believing stupid things!

Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister. My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place. But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister. Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue. I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. Blissyu2 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blissy, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, as you write, "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com."

If there were others who "accused you of being Poetlister" can you direct me to the pages and passages therein where I might lay my eyes on those accusations and read them for myself?

Is it your contention the FT2 was mistaken when he wrote that passage in W-R suggesting that the WP posting about G.H. signed by Zordrac came from the author of the PoetGuy personas?

Also, can you explain why, in your cited reference, you did not unequivocally disclose that you authored the Zordrac post? I've read those five bulleted paragraphs several times now, and I frankly confess I am unable to extract a coherent view from them, primarily because your testimony fails to distinguish your own presumptive theories of mind from the expressly stipulated frame of minds of those whose frame of mind you are purporting to characterize in your account.

Moulton 21:37, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Okay, FT2 is taking up my invitation to talk to Poetlister. Note that, had anyone bothered to do this from the very start, then this would all have been resolved long ago. Once again, if you read what I wrote to Mindspillage, I was basically trying to prove it either way once and for all. Poetlister, however, refused to hold up a sign, and Mindspillage (and everyone else) refused to contact Poetlister. All ego tripping on everyone's parts. The passage from FT2 does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Further, in the statement made to Mindspillage it does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person. Zordrac (me) was investigating the ban of Poetlister. How could they be the same person? Read them again and perhaps you might get it. I was trying to write the Google docs article from a 3rd person perspective, although I did sign it Blissyu2, and also stated "Zordrac is a known alias of Blissyu2". I would have thought that that was obvious. How can you not understand what I am saying there? I must be missing something. What is there to confuse you? He says that I wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request, when in the link itself it actually says that I invited Poetlister. Simple. How could you get that confused? How could you think that Proabviouc is telling the truth when the link he provides proves that he is lying? Blissyu2 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

The Wikipedia Point of View

Just to add my two pennies - we already have The Wikipedia Point of View here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible.

It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. Ockham 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Peccadildonic Pastimes

What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.

If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.

Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring kvetchup on our refried brains.

Moulton 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. Blissyu2 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

Alas, the "aims of the site" were never clearly articulated, agreed-upon, or posted as a Mission Statement that everyone understood and subscribed to. Here is the best statement of the aims of W-R that I know of:

WR: NOT
Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.

Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...

The above notice only appeared briefly, when the site was down for a few days. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.

Moulton 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers

Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far away remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.

I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.

The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.

For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petty criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs. Joehazelton 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ab initio, that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- MyWikiBiz 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Those I address,will know which side of the issue they are on... obviously, not all to this place are in the ivory towers, as I described. Now, as a platform to carry out my war on wikpeida, that I tip my hat to you, the management of this place. I hope you will respect the concept of free speech were the true test of free speach is to protect speech we don't like. (I a a firm believer in this concept, which is alien to the Wipedidiots and those at WR.... is summarized in a Robert Bolt play.. "A Man of All Seasons"

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's.

In other words, you protect speech and opinons and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob.

My main passion is I'm now a running for City Console, for where I will have a impact on those who are in conflict with the ideas of Adam Smith and the notion that government is a regulator and not a participant or BIG Sugar daddy or sugar daddy to grown Adult, who should take responsibility for their life's and those life's for which they are responsible for. This is in contrast to most that run wikpeida you see the mess they cause.

Any rate I'm involved and have influence with two congressmen, and with many state and local office holders and I make sure all of the know what wikipeida is all about.

Also, I have, as well as my friends, submitted to IRS Complaint forms regarding its 501 (3)(c) status, which is in bold face violation of said statute. Now, it may take me 20 years, but I will see Wikipeida dead as it's provides the very tools for it's own destruction, the fools that administer wikipeida are to stupid and arrogant to know where the bolt from the blue will come from and they will not be immune...see some who thought they were above the law in cyberspace...the hammer of US:law Joehazelton 15:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Expectation of quality

Greg, you wrote: "Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia."

I wholeheartedly support this. This has not been entirely absent at the Review, but the format doesn't support it, and some of the senior members of the site seem uninterested in it. Part of this would mean vetting allegations before they're publicized, and excising material which falls short of our standards, which would leave many contributors to the Review with little to say. Of course, posters might upgrade their standards - you never know if you don't ask. Wikipedia Review lacks this expectation of quality.Proabivouac 16:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT) (Timothy Usher)

Kato has disclosed to me two of the principles that he appreciated learning from me over the past year on W-R. One was the concept of a "theory of mind" (accurately recognizing and identifying such mental states as beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, and pretensions of knowledge of another person). Another is the scientific concept of evidence-based reasoning. In journalism (as in mainstream science) we adopt evidence-based reasoning to avoid publishing ungrounded flights of fancies (e.g. hypothesized conspiracy theories) as if they were established facts grounded in scientifically reviewed evidence, analysis, and reasoning. Furthermore, given any alternate hypothesis that purports to overthrow the null hypothesis, we conscientiously employ the protocols of the Scientific Method to falsify all new hypotheses. It is upon consistent failure to falsify a novel hypothesis that it eventually emerges as a useful model that consistently makes reliable predictions. Anything less than that results in a constructed reality that mimics a cyberspace soap opera rather than the real world that we all jointly inhabit. —Moulton 17:41, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blog

I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). Naerii 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:

If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.

<embed>

Enter your email address:

Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a>

</form>

</embed>

--MyWikiBiz 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Old-Fangled Email List

JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet — last millennium I still had a life — I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? Jon Awbrey 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- MyWikiBiz 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a Content Creation Wiki and a Content Classification Wiki. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. Anthony 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Support

Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).

I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.

I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.

I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.

Geoff Wilson 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.

A side message to those admin of wikipeida that read these words... I SPIT ON YOU and YOUR COWARDLINESS (This for Robert "Gamaliel" Fernandez, Mark A<sshole> "Raul654"Pellegrini, and my very local beer and new age ashram-ite cultist, Scott the ""Goethean" Zim.. ... IF YOU DON"T LIKE WHAT I SAY, COME HERE and FACE ME, TOE TO TOE, LIKE MEN instead like the SPINLESS WORMS you have shown your self all to be, by action and deed.

Sorry for rants right now, due the fact I seethe with hate for liars, Cheaters, thief's,who steal people ideas and souls (reputations) and the bold fact Hypocrisy which runs unchecked and unchallenged. Joehazelton 16:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Besides the very obvious hypocrisy of criticizing others for "ad humiumin" attacks, hostile and barely-literate screeds of this nature bring this page into disrepute. Accordingly, I propose removing them.Proabivouac 18:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

While I'm not at this time going to remove the rant-like comments, I am prepared to remove them. I think that the arrival of Joe, and Blissy, and Moulton, and indeed Jon and myself, is a point of concern and of opportunity. I will not participate in this new project if it is just another Internet free-for-all. However, I also want it to be a chance for anyone who has the capability to contribute within our designated format and our agreed-upon guidelines, to do so. Lord knows, if you cannot or choose not to write in a fluid, understandable, journalistic manner, there are about a million other fora where you can write in the manner that you wish. We who will assemble in this new forum have both an entitlement and an obligation to maintain the joint the way we want it maintained. I think the parameters should be set by a small team (3 or 5 persons who are willing and able to put in the effort), and then they enforce the standards of content quality, contributor behavior, and drama suppression. If that means this cannot be an "open" forum, so be it. If that means "by invitation only" is the way to go, so be it. I'd prefer to try that it be as open as possible, but that may not be workable. Right now, we're just talking about possibilities, so that's why I'm not removing comments. Thanks for listening; I hope I've got it sort of "right" for a good portion of you. -- MyWikiBiz 20:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Allowing people to contribute and get attached before banning them is a horrible idea. People don't get angry at publications to which they were never invited to contribute. It's unfair to someone to dangle before him the prospect of finally having a place where his voice can be heard, allow him to sink his time into it, and then stand in public judgment over him. So does Wikipedia creates its malcontents.Proabivouac 22:27, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Proabivouac, you're an arogant ass, who elected you to be a back seat wikipedidiot AssMin. If you don't like my screeds, then don't read them. Joehazelton 23:18, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Joe, upthread you wrote:

AMEN... there needs to be a forum which the Concept of free speech, rule of law, and respect for the idea you fight bad speech with good speech and remove the idea of "GROUP THINK" and "THOUGHT CRIME" and "PC" A forum were ideas stand the test of augment with the ad humiumin non-sense of killing the messenger or the wikian idea of "SOCKPUPPET" is truly is offensive since you judge the idea and not the messenger. WikiRewiew has lost it's way and has dropped the ball in favor if APPESMENT OF THE POWER DRUNK WIKIPEDIDOT ADMIN.

Among those notions, Joe, one stands out for me: Rule of Law.

Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why?

Moulton 15:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

You should have read what I wrote fully in the section above. "...In other words, you protect speech and opinions and not censor them, even those that you don't like or consider good, not for the protection of the other guy you hate, but to protect your own right!!! Because without the rule of law and it's fair application, you have a situation, LIKE on the Wikipeida where Thuggery and Tyranny of the Majority and where truth gets thrown out with the rule of the mob...."

Moulton, Read, think, then write. Joehazelton 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Permit me to rephrase the question, Joe. Do you have faith in the Rule of Law? If so, why? —Moulton 21:09, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

When can we start?

I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. Anthony 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Wow, this is a bit of a surprise to me. I thought one of the failures of Wikipedia was that they set off to launch the project before really thinking out what they OUGHT to do for it to be successful in fulfilling the stated mission. I feel like a "let's get this hammered out this weekend" approach would be ill advised, but... I'm also a spontaneous person at heart. How do others feel about it? We're still drawing in new people, so that's a sign (to me) that disgruntled WRers already "know" that they have a place to come, at least for the moment. Personally, I'd think a more reasonable target date for launch would be November 1 or something like that. -- MyWikiBiz 14:01, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Very much against splitting the 'broad church' of Wikipedia Review with all its flaws and idiosyncracies. As I said, I'm content with trying to document the abuse in a careful and well-sourced way, that a complete outsider, such as a journalist or adviser to the Sloan Foundation could pick up and read with interest or disgust. Ockham 00:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Invitation-only

I propose that participation be by invitation only. Good posters to the Review and elsewhere can be identified and invited. This way, people won't feel as bad for not being allowed to write for us: no one has to be "blocked" or "banned" (public disgrace and all that.) Proabivouac 17:14, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

I propose that you (Proabivouan) be banned, due to fact you want to create another wikipeidan like cesspool. I don't think you have much to offer, except your wiki apologists mumbo jumbo. All you want Proabivouna is to create an elitist colony of wikpedia cultist, embracing group think and thought crime and to leave behind any sense of fair play or respect for others and their points of view. You to much wraped up, as a Wikpeidiot, and can't fathom normal interaction and debate. I wonder if you have sucked down way to much jimbo juice. Joehazelton 23:35, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Joe, please exhibit your evidence and reasoning for the ~~fact~~ theory of mind that "Proabiviouac "wants to create another Wikipedian-like cesspool." —Moulton 15:15, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Yup.Proabivouac 02:31, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

I agree that Proabivouac should not be included, as he has deliberately lied in a major investigation, and refused to correct his evidence after over a month of lying. Blissyu2 19:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blissy, what is your evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that any errors in Proabiv's account are knowing and intentional acts of deception? —Moulton 21:14, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

I don't know that they are knowingly deceptive. I do know that what he said about me is false, and I have proven this, and for over a month he has known that this was false but has refused to change it. It is still false to this day. When he changes it with a note to say "Sorry, woops, my bad" then perhaps we can discuss whether or not he meant to deceive. Until then, it is fair to say that someone that refuses to change a lie for over a month is deliberately deceiving. Not to mention the amount of smears on my name by Alison and others based on Proabivouac's lies. Blissyu2 22:59, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blissy, it is common for people to be in error. It is uncommon for people to be intentionally deceptive. The word "lie" is normally used to refer to an intentional deception, as opposed to a simple misconception. Please do not apply the term "lie" to a falsehood unless you are prepared to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally propagated a substantive falsehood for the intended purpose of misleading or deceiving others. It is lamentable that many such errors go uncorrected in the venue where they initially appear. I struggle with this same problem myself, so I know how it feels to observe a false characterization in a venue where I am powerless to post a correction, challenge, or rebuttal. Let us not repeat that kind of tsuris here. —Moulton 07:45, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

Envoi

my customary rule about not arguing with cats and infants
has now been extended to include wikipediots,
and my definition of a wikipediot
has now been expanded to include
anyone who thinks that wikipedia
can be fixed.

i have no interest in a wikified version of wikipedia review
if it's going to include wikipediots and pseudonyms --

life is just too short for that ...

Jon Awbrey 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Answer for Jon

For the sake of engaging Jon Awbrey, and out of risk of being call Der Untermensch in the eyes of Jon, I will say anonymous speech is recognized and protected, and has a very long history in American Law and culture, and as such has a place, to allow debate with out fear and chilling effects of real world reprisals title

Now, if a pseudonym statements (speech) is shown with out merit or is that of liable or defamation then it should be delete by those who is the Publisher of the said writings, other wise allow to stand and judge on merit and not author.

See this stated from the Northern District of California in Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com,32 and cited excerpt from that California case:

People are permitted to interact pseudonymously and anonymously with each other so long as those acts are not in violation of the law(italic mine). This ability to speak one’s mind without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one’s identity can foster open communication and robust debate. Furthermore, it permits persons to obtain information relevant to a sensitive or intimate condition without fear of embarrassment. People who have committed no wrong(italic mine) should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit(Italic mine...note you sill have the right to sue if case has merit to go after) and thereby gain the power of the court’s order to discover their identity.33

In the end, bad free speech should be judged on it's own merits, not by the fact it's a "SOCK" or other pseudonyms.

This protection don't apply to those who wish to be a publisher (ie) Operator, Moderator, or other Admin with editorial power, this class of user should have real names and address tied to them, so those defamed can call to task, for any liable and/or defamation allowed to be publish, so those whose are defamed have protection from said defamation. This is where I differ from jon on this subject, but for the sake of Jon, I am willing to remove my Guy Fawkes mask to jon as long as he continues to respects my pseudonym Joehazelton 20:56, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Apparently everyone else knows who you are, Joe, but I have never heard of you. I thought that the only people banned from Wikipedia Review (which, incidentally, was founded on Guy Fawkes day in 2005) were former administrators and founding members plus the 3 trolls Malber, Grace Note and Amorrow. I didn't realise that you were ever there, let alone that you were banned. Maybe we should talk.

Anyway, relating to this issue, it is a very controversial one. I initially used the internet with my real name, but I ended up getting a lot of stupid phone calls that led to me having to change my phone number (and even making it a silent number), and then later someone found out my real name and made up a huge smear against me in 2002/03, that had my real name and real details next to things that weren't true. That person, for the record, claimed to be using their real name and real details in doing so, but they really weren't. Also note that Poetlister had claimed various real names, but they weren't real names. Using real names or not is not enough, nor is it helpful. If people individually want to do that, by all means they should be able to, but it shouldn't be enforced. Anything that is libellous should obviously be removed, but that should be the case whether the person saying it uses their real name or not. Blissyu2 23:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Not everyone is going to agree

When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.

One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.

This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules.

The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.

People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.

One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth.

If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.

Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. Blissyu2 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Main issues

I would suggest a start date of November 5th, because it is Guy Fawkes Day, and also the date that the original Wikipedia Review started. Since the current WR management are so keen to hide WR's true history, it would be good to remind them of this, that the people in control now had nothing to do with it when it started, and indeed have destroyed the memories of the people that worked so hard to make it what it is today.

Let's look at some good and bad aspects of Wikipedia Review today:

Good aspects of WR today:

It is a web forum - this encourages discussion, people's posts stay up for ages, can be referred to, there is a database, and you don't have to search for ages for a link to try to figure out who said what (as would be the case in a wiki).

The web forum is split into several sub forums - this encourages things to stay on topic, means that all discussion is welcome (except for illegal stuff), just that everything has its place.

There are private sub forums - it is essential for moderators to discuss sensitive issues privately, and also it is important to have members-only "Tar Pit" and even the Anti-Cabal forum (later changed names, etc) so that people could discuss things that they didn't want pro-Wikipedia people to be able to read.

Membership is heavily restricted - you need to have a non-free e-mail address to register, and each individual applicant needs to be approved by moderators. This takes moderators ages to do, but it saves a lot of hassle with bad applicants coming in without being checked.

Real full names of non-public figures are not allowed - on a web forum, having to have every claim proved to the nth degree is tedious and ruins the free discussion process. Not mentioning people's full names prevents frivolous law suits and also encourages free and open discussion.

Bad aspects of WR today:

They spend way too much time discussing themselves - in spite of all the sub forums, still almost every thread gets dominated by people discussing whether WR has a right to say this. This just dominates discussion and ruins the actual aim of the site. The most obvious way to stop this is to not allow people to enter if they are not in some ways opposed to Wikipedia. You can be mostly pro-Wikipedia but have ideas to improve it, but you shouldn't be totally pro-Wikipedia. You also shouldn't be anti-WR. These people, quite simply, should be banned. WR has, over its history, tolerated far too many people of this ilk, who would not be tolerated on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter (other than troll sites, who like drama). This creates drama, period. You can't always tell who is secretly who, so quite simply just as soon as they start being pro-Wikipedia or anti-WR then get rid of them. Maybe give them a few chances then go.

There is too much interpersonal conflict - once again, this is actually the same as the first issue. Wikipedia fanbois claims that it is because the people were banned from Wikipedia, but this is actually rubbish. The conflict begins by Wikipedia fanbois themselves. They come in, stir up trouble, and then that leads to people fighting amongst themselves. Sure, so people disagree, but these kinds of arguments are not all that heated and can be resolved easily enough.

There is too much censorship - this gets back to the problem of the site being taken over. When Selina took over, she wanted to hide her guilt, so wiped lots of stuff. She kept wiping stuff and kept wiping stuff, and kept doing bad stuff to hide it all. Somey, at least since he "bought" the site from Selina (who never actually owned it in the first place), has done much the same thing. That I could go from over 6,000 posts to around 4,500 in a week after "leaving" is pretty disgraceful. That there used to be over 1,000 threads of people referring to me as owner, and suddenly there are 0, is censorship. This wasn't the first, nor was it the last, issue of censorship. Obviously, there needs to be rules to prevent such things. Things should only be deleted for legal reasons - period. Anything else should be moved to a more appropriate place. Things wiped for legal reasons should be kept in a "trash can" for a week or so until analysed by all moderators. This is actually a rule on Wikipedia Review now, but Somey and Selina choose to ignore it, for power/ego reasons.

Good people have been destroyed - it doesn't matter whether you like someone or not. People who support the site, support its aims, and are doing their best to make it a good place should stay. The founder of the site was banned from their own site, for heaven's sakes. 5 of the 6 people who helped to make the new site at its own domain name were banned, all by the 6th person. Over half of the administrators of the site are now banned. Over half of the total bans on the site were to people who were former administrators and founders of the site. This is disgusting any way that you look at it. Rather than getting rid of trouble makers, they have in effect encouraged trouble makers at the expense of people who are making the site good. No site should do this. Sure, so we can say it is wrong for Wikipedia to ban people who criticise them, but what justification does WR have for banning people who support WR in all ways? It shouldn't happen anywhere. It creates so many other problems.

The history is dishonest - Wikipedia Review actually started on Guy Fawkes Day, 2005. Igor Alexander actually started it. 6 people actually moved it to its domain name, including Igor Alexander. Selina was one of the 6, but was never actually meant to be an administrator. Selina was never owner, legal or effective. I was the owner. Blu Aardvark was meant to be the chief administrator. Selina was simply the coder. Lots of lies have been told about this. So deep are the lies that today some people are believing that Poetlister, who wasn't banned from Wikipedia until 2 months after WR began, is actually behind all of WR! Keeping a real history is important. The thing is that the whole way through I actually did keep a real history of WR, and kept updating it every month or so, yet *STILL IT IS DISPUTED*. How ridiculous is that? Something which was repeated in a thread every single month is still disputed by people. My being owner is today still seriously disputed by some people, in spite of thousands of threads, not just on Wikipedia Review, but on Wikipedia and throughout the net, by all sorts of people, for 2 whole years, right up until the day that I was "banned". I have even printed out original e-mails with full headers that say exactly what they said when I bought it, yet still some people dispute it! I mean seriously guys. Keeping an honest history is important to the site, and to any site. If you don't keep an honest history, then people can just say whatever they like, and it all just looks stupid. How dumb does the Wikipedia Review article look on Wikipedia when they don't even have a start date or the names of the people responsible for its creation? Even ED has that! How dumb is it that Encyclopaedia Dramatica is more reliable than Wikipedia Review?

It is hypocritical - On a lot of issues, Wikipedia Review is very hypocritical. In one breath they complain about truth changing, but in the next breath they censor posts. In one breath they complain about people not saying who they are, but in the next breath the person running it has never said their real name or who they really are. And so forth. It is a real issue.

What you think are the real issues are up to you. But you need to think through what is really wrong with the site, and what can really be done to change what is wrong. Don't get it wrong! For example, if you make it real names only, you won't get too many people. Make it anything other than a forum, especially if you don't have a forum element, and people won't go. Make it too much different, and people just won't go.

Be careful if you do make a wiki though, as they need to be thought out well. Encyclopaedia Dramatica is actually a good way to run a wiki, software wise, and is probably the best place in terms of discouraging stalking and the like that I have seen. Use that model as a basis for any wiki you have, rather than Wikipedia's, but overall think that through clearly too. Blissyu2 08:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)