67
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 15:06, 12 October 2008
, 15:06, 12 October 2008→Peccadildonic Pastimes: Published aims of W-R, per Somey.
: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. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 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. [[User:Blissyu2|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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18961&view=findpost&p=111131 best statement of the aims of W-R] that I know of:
<Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote><Blockquote>
<Font Color="#FF0000"><b>WR: NOT</b></Font><br /><i>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.</i><br><br><b>Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. <i>That's what we're doing...</i></b></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote></Blockquote>
::The above notice only appeared briefly, [http://wc3.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@@.1de35bad when the site was down for a few days]. I believe the above paragraph was composed by Somey.
::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==
==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==
