Comments on: I Made Wikipedia

By: UML Guy

UML Guy — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:22:37 +0000

Andy,

Unless I’ve gone completely bonkers, this:

â€œDelete. Her radical and wrong-headed opinions donâ€™t deserve this kind of endorsement from us! We must not let her have even 5k of space on our glorious servers of the revolucion; we must not give her an outlet for her reactionary words! Vote for social justice, vote for deletion! Vanu 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

was not a serious post. Vanu wasn’t serious; he or she was mocking the purported political correctness of the Wickipedia folks by posting an exaggerated example of a Communist revolutionary arguments. You may find legitimate arguments against the delete crowd, but I don’t think this post is one of them.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:52:03 +0000

That’s if I want to. It was fun while it lasted, taking a peek under the hood, but I’ve got more important things to do with my time. Thanks for the invite though.

By: Gamaliel

Gamaliel — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:59:16 +0000

Wikipedia is as good as new with no losses. You know, Andy, wikis are pretty easy to start. Even the Star Trek geeks have their own wiki encyclopedia. So you can start up “a real objective and notable encyclopedia” of your own, if you are up to the task.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:23:17 +0000

LOL, Wickedpedia (did I say Rickety-Wikity?) has now been down for over a day now with database corruption and lost files. IIRC, Ri-Wi said something like 120 GB, and to think one of the Deleters said LSB wasn’t worthy of 5Kb.

They finally manged to restore enough from archives to get into a read-only mode. It remains to be seen if they can recover everything up to the moment of the crash.

Wikis are not worthy before Queen La Shawn

By: MartiniPundit

MartiniPundit — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:57:18 +0000

I’ve used Wikipedia only occasionally, and mostly for convenience when I needed to have a quick definition on a topic. I hinestly had no idea about the inner workings of the thing and it ain’t pretty. Having seen the way the sausage is made over there, I can say definitively that they’ve diminished their utility in my eyes.

That LSB belongs in such a resource is a no-brainer.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:44:46 +0000

Hello again Gamaliel, you’re a pretty prolific wikipediaist.

Wonder if you’ll still feel that all of your work invested into rickety-wikity was worth it all, when it gets dislocated by a real objective and notable encyclopedia? Looks like Jimbo owned your soul for his own widdle wiki-enterprise.

By: Gamaliel

Gamaliel — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:34:03 +0000

Wikipediagate? Runaway train? Please. Note the number of ongoing deletion discussions – nothing exceptional is happening here. This stuff is old hat to us, we deal with it everyday. Just run of the mill coping with new users who think it’s “brilliant rhetoric” to accuse us of having a left-wing/right-wing/Nazi/communist/anti-just about everything agenda because they can’t understand or don’t bother to read the simple rules of our community.

By: Mike McConnell

Mike McConnell — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:09:02 +0000

And therein lies the faulty concept of an “online encyclopedia”…whenever somebody uses the words “compromise,” “bothers you,” and “document positive things” in the same sentence about Wickedpedia, then there is certainly something seriously wrong with the whole Wickedpedia concept. This isn’t about “control.” This is about a runaway train heading for the cliffs. Better check out the “Vandalism” page on Wickedpedia’s site and you can see the problems first hand.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:58:44 +0000

Wikipedia seems to be “reasonably OK” when it comes to non-controversial topics, and slightly insane when it comes to controversial ones. Often after a while things settle down into some compromise that presents everyone’s point of view in a quasi-objective way. Possibly the Negroponte thing is one-sided because nobody on the right of US politics has been sufficiently interested to make a change. If it bothers you, maybe you should document some positive things about his career.

By: Scott Ferguson

Scott Ferguson — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:59:50 +0000

There may be some decent people at Wikipedia after all.

An anonymous and apparently powerful godling entered into the fray; and (in good taste) mauls “Rikk” and “Gamaliel” with an appeal to principle, The rhetoric is brilliant. Scroll down; comment appears before “01:48, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)”.

By: The Radical Centrist

The Radical Centrist — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:35:52 +0000

In the midst of LaShawn Barber’s Wikipedia controversy, this gem
There’s a debate, of sorts, underway at Wikipedia over whether La Shawn Barber, one of the better bloggers on the right, is worth an entry. Wikipedia is a site (and a concept) that I like a lot, but it has

By: Jase Alston

Jase Alston — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:14:38 +0000

You got to meet Dr. Mike,

My my!

By: Common Sense Runs Wild

Common Sense Runs Wild — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:00:48 +0000

Wikipediagate and La Shawn Barber
NEWDAVE.COM called it so he gets to run with Wikipediagate – An

By: Scott Konecky

Scott Konecky — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:54:35 +0000

Wiki is a mess. Always.

La Shawn’s tale is being picked up on other blogs.

By: Scott Ferguson

Scott Ferguson — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:25:52 +0000

Bucky Rae,

Aren’t you projecting just a wee bit?