Wikipedia is going rotten, with editor oneupmanship
plutonium....@gmail.com
over private citizens
It is apparent from this Usenet Personalities entry, that Wikipedia
editors have gained a "one upmanship" over the general public. Where
they pack together as a pack wolves, and due to their extreme juvenile
age such as :
Paine Ellsworth Andy Dingley DMacks David Tribble
That they include a "kook list" into a encyclopedic entry.
And whenever persons of the general public get fed up with this
juvenile behaviour of Wikipedia editors and try to change the acid,
they are ganged up by those wolves with their reverts, their blocking,
their voting.
So what has to be done to change this situation of a gang of editors,
lording over the general public with their "slanted entries". What has
to be done is to start making names of Wikipedia editors who have
belittled and defamed common citizens.
File with the State Attorney's Office. File in courts. Start listing
names of Wikipedia editors who use the "encyclopedia as their own
platform to fan hatred".
William Tecumseh Sherman, the Civil War General, long ago commented
that when one of his boys was killed on the field, the newspaper would
end up misspelling his name. Well, if General Sherman were alive
during Wikipedia, not only would his dead and dying soldier have his
name misspelled, and if Wikipedia had their say, that soldier would be
on a "kook list"
It is fine to enlist packs of juvenile editors to build a
encyclopedia, but then it goes too far, it stretches too far and you
have a encylcopedia that does harm and damage to the society because
of its pack of juveniles wanting to get a laugh out of belittling
people.
216.254.227.20 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)posted to
sci.physics,sci.math,soc.history
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread[
I can't wait for the final psychotic break where you finally decide to
off yourself.
David Kain
Champion tedium rules
comp.uranus.let.him.die
Duel chromium panties
He is a premium old cunt
Humanoid rectum piles.
I am rectum unpolished
Manure-mouth disciple
Oh, I'm presumed lunatic
Plutonium? Scream - hide!
Supreme Homicidal Nut
Home Catsup - Mild Urine
Hum aloud, metric penis!
Jacko
but it really is to get the kiddies to absorb conformed opinion. In
this sense it does not attempt to be a research publication, the role
of which is to censor anything which is not new of a conformist
understanding. If your expecting publication do it yourself. Wikipedia
is for the average drivelshite to inform themselves of semi
intelligent things to know, not for them to attempt to do any
research.
cheers jacko
plutonium....@gmail.com
Alot of what you say is very true, sort of a conformist lynch mob.
But what is troubling is that "encyclopedic" is also connoting that
of "objective, highest standard of knowledge"
And how Wikipedia with its "subjective lists" its continual trials of
new fangled contraptions:
1) Unencyclopedia
2) * Rationalwiki's List of Internet Kooks
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_internet_kooks
Wikipedia's constant attempt to "use its encyclopedic" status
as a hate-platform.
Where a person's life work is then "judged by a gaggle of
Wikipedia editors" I think not.
I think Wikipedia, with its current momentum is going to get
ensared in the legal system, and have its wings clipped severely.
Wikipedia at its current rate of subjective smear, could be in
front of the USA Supreme Court as a "invader of privacy"
If Wikipedia puts some judges on a "kook list", it may just
happen this year in 2009, where a class action lawsuit against
Wikipedia lands them in the Supreme Court.
An encyclopedia, driven by unemployed juvenile editors who volunteer
their free service, and in return we have a Internet encyclopedia full
of acid of negativity and belittling of most people. And we have
groups of people in organizations volunteering free editing and in
exchange
they bias and slant the entries.
Maybe what should have happened was that initially Wikipedia had
"free editing" but once they had "body mass" of a encyclopedia, they
should have eliminated the "free editing" and brought in professional
editors who made the hard cover encyclopedia's and let them improve
the work.
As it stands currently, Wikipedia is becoming a Wild West show, not
much
different from a Usenet newsgroup of the 1990s with its flamewars,
hatemongering
and overall negative tone.
Wikipedia already wasted a couple of months out of my life, when in
2007-2008
Wikipedia tried to brand me, saddle me with a false nickname. It felt
like a bank
or utility having a computer mistake bill try to wrench money out of
me.
Here is a good name for what Wikipedia is shaping up to be--
"telemarketing-encyclopedia"
And where people have a law that says "Do Not Wiki Me" similar to the
Do Not Call
law.
At the moment Wikipedia is adrift. Evidence: its contraptions like
Uncyclopedia
or its Kook lists.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Benj
> You'd have thought that encyclopedic would mean of broad knowledge,
> but it really is to get the kiddies to absorb conformed opinion. In
> this sense it does not attempt to be a research publication, the role
> of which is to censor anything which is not new of a conformist
> understanding. I
Exactly. Wikipedia by it's very nature is conformist. Anyone can write
an entry and anyone can change one. So if a subject the least bit
controversial comes up the entries seesaw back and forth until editors
shut down the debate. The editors don't much help with this situation
either. If there is a controversy on a given topic one might expect an
"encyclopedia" to offer up the reigning opinions of both sides. Wiki
has a hard time with that. Editors ( and lets face it the contributors
too) tend to go for the "majority vote" thing. The position with the
most votes gets the paragraph and those with less get removed. Wiki
is a wonderful and amazing compendium of subjects and information, but
users must never lose sight of the fact that it's all determined by a
democratic majority vote. Minority opinions are not going to appear
there. Hence, it's a wonderful collection of conformist
understanding. What? You thought that somehow you were going to be
handed real knowledge without doing any work? If so, then you need to
be put on the Kook-list.
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:b2b0ccb1-ea08-4e0a...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
http://tinyurl.com/cn8dlm March 19, 1:00 pm
Jacko
I think the removal rather than demotion by vote is what is irksome.
It would be so easy to have a minority opinion link on a page, but
such is the tyranny of the though police, not wanting to lose a mind
to the entropy of constructive synthesis consensus.
cheers jacko
Industrial One
Wikipedia is the only public userbase website I can name which has a
policy allowing you to ignore a rule if it's dipshitted and prevents a
constructive edit. It's the only site that operates on common sense
and not a jewish, rigid interpretation of the rules. I came across
countless other places where the owner justifies being an incompetent
dumb fuck by saying "it's my website, I'm the owner." "It's my
site"... that's all he knows. Wikipedia is the only free encyclopedia
that's uncensored and doesn't single anyone out. It is known for its
lack of authority and lack of influence from any megacorp/government.
Calling it an indoctrination machine is really fucking low.
Also, Wikipedia is a *reference* encyclopedia and a shitstorm house
that rips everyone the fuck apart that it hosts an article on would be
Encyclopedia Dramatica. Learn the differences, fags.
Androcles
"Industrial One" <industr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f0f2034-f8dd-4375...@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Nasty little fucking homosexual spick bastard, aren't you?
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
David R Tribble
> If Wikipedia puts some judges on a "kook list", it may just
> happen this year in 2009, where a class action lawsuit against
> Wikipedia lands them in the Supreme Court.
>
> An encyclopedia, driven by unemployed juvenile editors who volunteer
> their free service, and in return we have a Internet encyclopedia full
> of acid of negativity and belittling of most people. And we have
> groups of people in organizations volunteering free editing and in
> exchange they bias and slant the entries.
>
> Maybe what should have happened was that initially Wikipedia had
> "free editing" but once they had "body mass" of a encyclopedia, they
> should have eliminated the "free editing" and brought in professional
> editors who made the hard cover encyclopedia's and let them improve
> the work.
You obviously still have no idea how Wikipedia works.
All of your complaints would magically melt away if you could
provide citations to reliable published sources that:
1) demonstrate that your ideas are /not/ considered eccentric
or out of the mainstream of physics and mathematical theorists;
or
2) demonstrate that your theories and ideas really are being
debated in the pages of refereed physics and mathematics
journals.
Then you could present a cogent argument that someone
out there does /not/ consider your ideas eccentric, and that
fact could be noted on Wikipedia. But so far, this has not
happened, has it?
You really can't expect to have much control over what
the majority of sci.math and sci.physics newsgroup users
write about you. The simple (documented) fact is that they
do not consider you an unrecognized genius.
You know that.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Noone is complaining about "eccentric"
On the bottom of that Usenet Personality entry is
* Rationalwiki's List of Internet Kooks
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_internet_kooks
David Tribble
DMacks
Paine Ellsworth
Andy Dingley
So you and this gang is "branding" everyone on that page as a "kook"
So it is time to get those four persons listed with a "police record"
as editors who do harm to the general public.
As editors unfit for any encyclopedia job, and you four guys just
stepped
out of a college drunk fraternity party with no business in editing a
encyclopedia.
Benj
> You goddamn pansies! You have any idea how unfair you're being?
calling any criticism "unfair"]
> Calling it an indoctrination machine is really fucking low.
Oh oh. Well, I guess we just heard from one of the Wikipedia editors.
"Known for lack of authority and and influence" my ass. Christ. Just
go read the bass guitar article. The editor was DETERMIINED to keep
that POS the dumbest crap on the planet and totally refused to allow
any modifications by persons with actual years of professional
experience playing bass guitar. Lowest common denominator. So we are
stuck at the high school newbie level forever. And that's just one
article out of god knows how many. Was that editor you?
> Also, Wikipedia is a *reference* encyclopedia and a shitstorm house
> that rips everyone the fuck apart that it hosts an article on would be
> Encyclopedia Dramatica. Learn the differences, fags.
Ah. The old "proof by name calling" ploy. Sure. You really add to this
discussion...NOT. You are just setting an example of the kind of
attitude that has turned wiki into the conformist crap it is. Try to
understand this numbnuts, [trying out your name-calling ploy for
reenforcement] If an issue is controversial, you don't just take a
vote to find out which side is most popular and then censor all other
opinions, you carefully define the various positions. Got it?
LudovicoVan
As already noted by others, this is a logic of dominant opinions and
marginalisation of differences: this approach should have stayed out
of Wikipedia. Not to talk about legitimising the generalised ad
hominem (in this case, by you and your peers): simply despicable.
-LV
David R Tribble
>> If Wikipedia puts some judges on a "kook list", it may just
>> happen this year in 2009, where a class action lawsuit against
>> Wikipedia lands them in the Supreme Court.
>
David R Tribble wrote:
>> You obviously still have no idea how Wikipedia works.
>>
>> All of your complaints would magically melt away if you could
>> provide citations to reliable published sources that:
>>
>> 1) demonstrate that your ideas are /not/ considered eccentric
>> or out of the mainstream of physics and mathematical theorists;
>> or
>>
>> 2) demonstrate that your theories and ideas really are being
>> debated in the pages of refereed physics and mathematics
>> journals.
>>
>> Then you could present a cogent argument that someone
>> out there does /not/ consider your ideas eccentric, and that
>> fact could be noted on Wikipedia. But so far, this has not
>> happened, has it?
>>
>> You really can't expect to have much control over what
>> the majority of sci.math and sci.physics newsgroup users
>> write about you. The simple (documented) fact is that they
>> do not consider you an unrecognized genius.
>> You know that.
>
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Noone is complaining about "eccentric"
That is a public admission that you do not mind being
categorized as "eccentric". Noted.
> On the bottom of that Usenet Personality entry is
> * Rationalwiki's List of Internet Kooks
> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_of_internet_kooks
>
> So you and this gang is "branding" everyone on that page as a "kook"
Obviously not. I am not an editor for RationalWiki, and I don't
think the other guys are either. We didn't write that list.
It does, however, document what other people think about you.
The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, states that you are
"noted for eccentric beliefs and theories"
and
"noted for his many posts about his own theories of physics,
mathematics, and stock market investing, and in particular his
"Plutonium Atom Totality" theory"
These are cited, documented facts.
The article does not call you a "kook". The article is written in a
neutral tone, and does not indicate in any way what any Wikipedia
editor personally feels about you. It cites what other Usenet posters
as a whole have said about you. Your complaints are baseless.
You might be taken a bit more seriously if you didn't insult everyone
in every edit you make and if you didn't keep vandalizing the
articles.
> So it is time to get those four persons listed with a "police record"
> as editors who do harm to the general public.
Even if by "general public" you mean "Archimedes Plutonium", you
don't have a case to make. To my knowledge, no one on Wikipedia
has ever called you a kook.
So good luck with your persecutions. Be sure to include the
actual text of the article in your police filing as evidence.
Industrial One
> On May 11, 6:05 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> You goddamn pansies! You have any idea how unfair you're being?
>
> [snip extremely well written rant defending the wiki editors and
> calling any criticism "unfair"]
>
> > Calling it an indoctrination machine is really fucking low.
>
> Oh oh. Well, I guess we just heard from one of the Wikipedia editors.
> "Known for lack of authority and and influence" my ass. Christ. Just
> go read the bass guitar article. The editor was DETERMIINED to keep
> that POS the dumbest crap on the planet and totally refused to allow
> any modifications by persons with actual years of professional
> experience playing bass guitar. Lowest common denominator. So we are
> stuck at the high school newbie level forever. And that's just one
> article out of god knows how many. Was that editor you?
Nope, I don't binge edit. Besides, people have a choice whether to
accept my contributions or not, I don't give a shit either way.
> > Also, Wikipedia is a *reference* encyclopedia and a shitstorm house
> > that rips everyone the fuck apart that it hosts an article on would be
> > Encyclopedia Dramatica. Learn the differences, fags.
>
> Ah. The old "proof by name calling" ploy. Sure. You really add to this
> discussion...NOT. You are just setting an example of the kind of
> attitude that has turned wiki into the conformist crap it is. Try to
> understand this numbnuts, [trying out your name-calling ploy for
> reenforcement] If an issue is controversial, you don't just take a
> vote to find out which side is most popular and then censor all other
> opinions, you carefully define the various positions. Got it?
Oh, you would rather have a needledick administrator dictate how the
controversial article should turn out, and when you ask why he'll just
tell you he's the boss and decides how shit operates on his site?
On the other hand, I somewhat agree. When reading articles such as
"Hypnotherapy," it really is the epitome of what flaming fucktards
most members of the public are. While it's written in a neutral tone,
it talks about it as if this bullshit practice has any credibility in
a medical context. WHERE IS THE FUCKING PROOF THAT HYPNOTHERAPY
WORKS?! If I even brought that up in the article/discussion page, the
glassy, bug-eyed manic queers would probably tell me "But these people
are doctors, they are Ph.D's." DOCTORS... YEAH OK. Doctors cure
illnesses motherfucker, not read you bed-time stories to get you to
reveal details of how daddy sodomized you.
Seriously though, most of you here are wannabe/real physicists,
mathematicians etc. so show me one article about physics or math that
ain't up to par with your standards. Improve them, no one stops you.
Igor
plutonium....@gmail.com wrote in message
<138ac197-c854-47b2...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>...
Is you is or is you ain't Napoleon?