Changes

'''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?

'''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==

== On real-world qualifications/authentication==

'''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.  —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])} _{/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em>}

'''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.  —&nbsp;[[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])} _{/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em>}

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.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

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.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

== A word from Blissyu2 ==

== 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.   

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.   

:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt cited reference] reads as follows:

:::::Blissy, the first "correction" of your [http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 once, by Wikipedia user Zordrac in a message to Wikipedia administrator Mindspillage on 23rd December 2005].''

::::::''At no stage did Mr.Baxter (as Poetlister or otherwise) give the name Gazelle Hillperson.  The name Gazelle Hillperson was given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 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?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper?  My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 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?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv.  Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 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."  I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''.  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT)  

::::::::That page does not contain any claims by Proabiv.  Please direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 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."  I am looking for a page ''written by Proabiv'' and bearing that alleged claim ''in his writing''.  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:41, 12 October 2008 (PDT)  

:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you ''referred'' "Giselle Hillman" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::::Actually, the report states that the information was "added by " you, not written by: we'd assumed that when you ''referred'' "Gazelle Hillperson" of Ilford 2000 to classmates.com, that her name then appeared in her class list.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:14, 12 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.  

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.  

::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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 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? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=680&p=127804&#entry127804 passage from FT2] does not in any way suggest that Zordrac and Poetlister are the same person.  Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage&diff=next&oldid=32464977 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? [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:05, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Adrian, ''where is the page and passage'' in which (as you claim) ''Proabiv says'' that you wrote wrote the G. H. entry in NamesDatabase at Poetlister's request?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 14:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq

:::::He's referring to this document: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq

:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::We wrote that he "added" the information, but it sounds like Blissyu2 says he only invited "Poetlister" to add it himself. As soon as he clarifies what happened, we can make the necessary correction.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 15:43, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Would you quit it, Blissyu2? Just explain what happened. You "invited" Poetlister to the site. Okay. Why did you invite him?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==

::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

::[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::As much as I believed in this statement, I am regretfully coming to conclude that "It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption…" may not be the case. Specifically, liars like Mr. Baxter are welcome so long as they oppose certain Wikipedia administrators.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:18, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==

==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==

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.  [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

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.  [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)