I don't know about any specific incidents Newyorkbrad has referred to below, but I generally agree with his characterization of the site. I've told them exactly what I think of the nature of some discourse there when I started this thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4527.
I recommend that anyone who chooses to participate on Wikipediocracy keep this in mind. It is a site that was set up solely to criticize Wikipedia and (in my opinion, unfortunately) some members of its community. It is not the world's foremost reference site and, not surprisingly, has very different policies. I don't see why it should be held to the same standards as Wikipedia, any more than a site like Encyclopedia Dramatica should. Personally, I choose to ignore the personal stuff and look for secondary sources on the issues I care about. Fortunately, they provide many very ligit links (most of them to WP, as I have mentioned) to back up their arguments. This discussion begs the question: if there's a lot on Wikipediocracy that they find unpleasant or offensive, why are so many contributors, admins, and upstanding members of the WP community going there to discuss issues instead of talking through them in places like this forum? ,Wil On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor > Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I > haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and > information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have > been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention > to the well-being of BLP subjects. > > To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some > things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have > a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to > exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their > illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia > norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or > pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and > important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone > of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be > deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round > Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a > troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities > and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is > particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale > publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing > list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point. > > As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on > policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on > particular individuals. > > I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on > Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects > badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest > it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site > should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, > and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply > accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already. > > Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
