Now on ScienceBlogs: That Which I Sowed in Tears, I Now Reap in Joy: A Love Letter to my Beautiful Readers
Taking science by the throat...
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Wiki madness | Main | Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet? »
Category: wikipedia
Posted on: July 2, 2008 6:48 PM, by William M. Connolley
Gosh, you wait for one piece of insanity and then two come along at once. But this time its personal. So those interested in wiki's inards can wade through the gore at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wheelwar regarding User:Giano_II. If you need a user guide to the process, I'm sure I can provide more details.
[Update: now transmogrified into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley -W]
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/75492
Comments
I don't "do wikipedia" so maybe I'm missing a lot, but it sure sounds like a bunch of monks arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.
Is there an automated logger that provides a running estimate of how many person-hours have been spent on an individual arbitration process?
Posted by: Matt Hussein Platte | July 2, 2008 7:42 PM
Link redirects to the general arbitration guide. Is it over?
[Thanks. The arbs are being even more excitable than I'd thought. Fixing -W]
Posted by: outeast | July 3, 2008 4:27 AM
I don't know what's going on in this particular case (I'm not even a fraction active what I used to be) but that Bishonen/Bishzilla/etc. is a multi-account user (irregularly tolerated - Thatcher closed the case I opened against him/her in ANI some months ago) that has already jumped onto my neck once. I don't trust that person.
I don't have a clear opinion of Geogre but in general I distrust admins, specially veteran admins, because they are too afraid of each other and tend to cover each other up (and their respective cliques). Too politicized.
Wikipedia needs anti-trust action - i.e. splitting in smaller competing units, so contributors (who are the real creators of the knowledge inside it) can "vote with their feet" and the prize for getting control of it is less tempting.
Posted by: Luis | July 3, 2008 6:02 AM
Are we supposed to understand this? It's all Greek to me. I remember when editing Wikipedia was fun and worthwhile; now it seems to be a colossally complicated dick-waving contest.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | July 3, 2008 7:03 AM
I'm impressed that you don't loos the temper more often... It must be hell trying to keep the globalwarming pages good.
Posted by: Magnus Westerstrand | July 3, 2008 7:06 AM
Its a pity wikipedia isn't photogenic. Otherwise you could sell soap opera rights.
Posted by: silence | July 3, 2008 1:08 PM
I beg to differ. Consider, say, an episode showing [sorry, that would have been inflammatory, unfortunately -W]
And, add in a dash of the theory of a Worldwide Warmist Conspiracy, and it can even start to hold a candle to the Rome series. I think we've got a winner here.
(And speaking of conspiracies...)
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 5, 2008 7:11 AM
Um oops. OK, I was saying, consider an episode showing █████ making out with █████ or something, and the bigger question of █████ got into █████'s good books (probably best left unanswered). Anyway, silence, you get the idea...
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
[Much better :-) -W]
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 5, 2008 1:07 PM
bi -- IJI: Oh yes, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY has a reliable source as to whether █████ and █████ were really making out. :P
Posted by: silence | July 6, 2008 10:14 AM
Oops, should be "the bigger question of how..."
If █████ and █████ really want to sell soap opera rights, then they will be the "reliable" source. :-B
... Oh shucks. I just realized that the Warmist Conspiracy Theories aren't half as colourful as the huge ruckus that's Wikipedia. Wikipedia conspiracy theories have cabals, inquisitions, money sloshing around, the whole nine yards. And on top of that, they also involve people making out. When was the last time you saw a climate conspiracy theory and wondered whether █████ was making out with █████?
Conclusion: Wikipedia pwns climate science. For now.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 6, 2008 2:53 PM
Mr Connelly, thanks again for educating me. I read enough of the links but not all.
Wikipedia looks a bit like G8.
Incidentally and if it's not impolite to ask : how do you find the time to talk to your family, loved ones and friends?
[Talk to my family? what makes you think I do that? But to answer you: my wife has a laptop too. We exchange emails :-) -W]
I support your sea-ice bet : as a non-specialist in climate I like to see people putting their money where their mouth is it helps me to make better judgments on the evidence and opinions.
Posted by: Eachran | July 7, 2008 7:22 PM
what a goat rope.
Posted by: steven mosher | July 9, 2008 9:37 AM
I'm sure someone would find this eventually, but this could use fixing.
[Gone already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Hansen&diff=224621858&oldid=224584862 Some chap called "Bi", apparently :-) -W]
Posted by: Nate | July 9, 2008 2:09 PM