Wikipedia partners with W.H.O. for COVID information

By Crowsnest

Wikipediocracy are so useless. What’s the real story here? Easy. Who the hell is telling the WHO that Wikipedia has a “vast network” of translators? They literally just launched Abstract Wikipedia precisely because they suck so badly at getting even basic facts to be consistent across the language editions. Who the hell told the WHO that Wikipedia is a source of reliable information? Or that it contributes to the public’s shared understanding of the facts?

Who the hell told the WHO this bullshit….

As one of the top ten sites in the world, studies have shown that Wikipedia is one of the most frequently viewed sources for health information.

….without showing them this Wikipedia disclaimer?

Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

I will tell you who. Wikipedia.

The WHO wants to avoid an infodemic, yet the are proudly endorsing a website that has “more than 5,200 coronavirus-related articles in 175 languages.” ?

Whoever it is in the Foundation that is arranging these partnerships, they are a manifest danger to public health.

I got banned from Wikipediocracy because I am apparently crazy and I don’t know shit. A diagnosis that could have only come from Doctor Wikipedia himself. You trust him, well, you probably deserve to be dead.

Is BarryBogside ever going to get his question answered by the Ombuds Commission?

Vandaag een artikel van de Engelse wiki-celebrity Crowsnest over wikipedia’s Ombuds Commission. Powermod MoiraMoira van WP-Nl heeft er ook al eens een zaak laten dienen wat toen mede tot de jammerlijke neergang van de Nederlandse internationale stewards JurgenNL en TBloeming heeft geleid toentertijd. Kortom, een zeer belangrijk wiki-instituut.

De Heren van Eerbeek zijn er nog steeds bijzonder fier op dat wij Crow’s, zoals hij in de wiki-volksmond genoemd zijn werk mogen plaatsen op ons bescheiden blog. Wat een eer!

============================================================

By Crowsnest.

You may recall, way back in May, that the user BarryBogside posed an important question to the Wikimedia Ombuds Commission, the nominal privacy watchdog of the Wikimedia Foundation.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombuds_commission/Archives/2020#Why_do_you_require_the_exposure_of_personal_information,_in_order_to_complain_about_invasion_of_privacy?

Barry had been concerned that Materialscientist had seemingly performed an illegal fishing check of his private data, over at the Bbb23 had been doing what, and for how long? scandal ridden sewer of corruption that is the English Wikipedia’s CheckUser Department of CheckUsering.

He’s just wanted a simple yes or no. As in, yes Materialscientist did perform an illegitimate fishing check, or no, Materialscientist did not perform an illegitimate fishing check. I am guessing Barry only wants to know, to defend Bbb23’s honour, since we all remember how, when they convicted Bbb23 of his high crimes, they claimed he had been acting alone, rejecting Bbb23’s defence that this is what all the English Wikipedia CheckUsers had always done, forever and ever, and that was why Tony B was so hopping mad at the suggestion they were just a bunch of mobsters with a badge.

After some hilarious back and forth where random wikishits disputed Barry’s concern as to whether it was fair or even legal for them to demand an email address from Barry before they would even let him pose such a question to the mighty O TO THE C G, they relented, and it appeared that yes, Barry’s case had been given a case number.

In the words of that oh so trustworthy sounding Ajraddatz….

Hello, thanks for raising this concern. We have opened an investigation (and did on 15 May 2020). We typically do not publicly post the results of an investigation, but we will discuss a mechanism for informing you of the result.

Fast forward to now, and after a query about the lack of O TO THE C DOUBLE G activity reports since March, we have this…..

14 cases left, 4 with motions to close in progress. If AGK doesn’t make some sooner I’ll probably do reports for the end of the term in Dec/Jan. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So maybe Barry will have a late Christmas present of Materialscientist’s Badge and Gun handed to him on a plate?

Or maybe not.

You know the motto of wikiland……WHADDA MEAN WHAT NEWS OF BARRY BOGSIDE’S COMPLAINT? WE ‘AIN’T EVER EVEN HEARD OF NO BARRY BOGSIDE! YOU BETTER GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS BEFORE YOUR ACCOUNT SUFFERS SOME KIND OF ACCIDENT OF THE NOTHERE INVOLVED DUCK SURPRISE KIND. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Looks at Guy Chapman HE KNOWS WHAT I MEAN, RIGHT? Yeah Clyde, he knows, everybody knows

This is the real Ajraddatz, the one where he thinks nobody can see him….

Hi, I’ve blocked your account indefinitely here. Meta isn’t the place to re-hash issues from other wikis, your comments on talk pages have been entirely unacceptable, and I doubt you will ever have a legitimate, good-faith reason to be editing on Meta. Please use the established processes for requesting an unblock on enwiki; i.e. UTRS and ArbCom. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And I’ve removed your talk page access after that tirade. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

See how easy it is? Almost as if Barry was purposefully being meticulously polite. Because “Bernard Griffin” was coming to Meta with the exact same issue, a suspected illegitimate fishing check of his account at en.wiki, and after getting the same corrupt response from the local wagon circling Admins, came to Meta looking for an avenue of appeal, with the exact same concerns about being required to provide an email address before anyone in the entire wikiworld would even hear his complaint of likely privacy invasion. And he got the usual go sleep with the fishes shut out from none other than Ajraddatz.


Hey dickheads. Nothing is forgotten. Everything has a purpose. Sometimes you’re just that fucking stupid is all. Why don’t you all just get a job more suited to your talents, and leave the encyclopedia writing to the experts? You damn dirty apes.

Guy Macon, Anne Frank, and boobies.

Geachte dames en Heren. Wij, heren van Eerbeek hebbende exclusieve toestemming verkregen artikelen van de Engelse wiki-celebrity Crowsnest hier op Eerbeek te plaatsen. Een enorme eer, want Crowsnest, Crow is gevreesd, gehaat en bewonderd in vooral Amerikaanse Wiki- en WMF kringen vanwege zijn scherpe en rake analyse van de Engelstalige wikipedia. De hoofdpersonen zullen vreemd voor u zijn maar al gauw vertrouwd.

Crowsnest: Feel free to tell the owner he has my permission to use anything I have posted before.

Dus vandaag Guy Macon, Anne Frank, and boobies.

============================================================

By Crowsnest.

This is pretty funny.

It turns out that when Guy Macon is not lying his ass off about the Daily Mail, he spends his days on Wikipedia holding forth about the sexual thoughts of fifteen year old girls. Maybe now we know why he hates the Mail so much? They’d have him pegged as a history pedo that gives Nazis cancer, for damn sure.

But I’m not here to embarrass Macon about pointing out his curious interests (I leave it to others to ponder whether fifteen year old girls would feel safe in such an environment).

What caught my eye, was his other behaviour, for there are some key similarities between what he is does there and what he does regarding the Daily Mail. And there are also key differences. They all speak to what Macon is, at his core (and I’m not just talking about his forlorn hope of ever becoming a Wikipedia Administrator). Worth noting in that respect, that where you find Macon doing his thing, you also find his Administrative protector Guy Chapman doing it too.

Similarities:

  • In both places, Macon is being an annoying argumentative arrogant ass. A quadruple AAAA threat to consensus building.
  • In both places, he happily repeatedly misrepresents his opponent’s views (and ignored the inevitable protests at what is an unambiguous violation of Wikipedia etiquette)
  • In both places, he has been caught telling outright lies (and just ignored that too, because wiki has the Fifth Amendment, right?)
  • In both places, he seems to genuinely think his peers give a fuck what he simply wants to assert as The Truth, rather than what he can prove

Differences:

  • At Anne Frank, Macon gives the highest priority to what independent reliable sources have to say. He needs to see a source that says exactly what is proposed to be added to the article (leaving aside the issue this was a straw man anyway), and he needs to see them being quoted in the discussion. At Daily Mail, Macon could give less of a fuck that there is a conspicuous lack of independent reliable sources, much less any concern that there are none being quoted to assuage concerns that Wikipedia editors like him, are not simply lying about what they claim they contain. He just posts any old link to the page as a supposed source, whether it’s a disgruntled employee’s blog or the usual biased Guardian opinion piece.
  • At Anne Frank, Macon even insists (albeit only by channeling BillsYourUncle and his mentor Chapman) on standing by the principle that “[Wikipedia] is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic”. At Daily Mail, Macon could give less of a fuck that there is not and likely never will be such a thing being produced that supports his argument. He claims at Daily Mail that academics have never even studied the Mail, because who would ever doubt that it’s just a pile of garbage? And if you believe that, maybe you two, are stupid enough to be a Wikipedia editor. The irony that the recent community debate regarding Fox, features academic level sources, is palpable.
  • At Anne Frank, Macon derides the idea that someone might turn up at an article with a predetermined view, and then goes looking for citations to support it when challenged. At Daily Mail, you’ve got to basically threaten to kill his whole family dead and make him live out his remaining days in Chapman’s loft space, before he even considers moving from “this is what I believe” to “here is what sources say” (leaving aside the quality and content of said sources when he does so).
  • At Anne Frank, Macon abhors the idea that anyone could look at a source, and draw improper conclusions to support their case. At Daily Mail, that is literally all he does, if you can even get him to discuss sources, rather than just link dump them. He thinks it’s perfectly fine to look at a bunch of sources that are merely a handful of examples of the Mail doing something wrong (and in most cases even that is debatable), and drawing the conclusion that this represents a conclusion that the Mail has been “widely criticized”. And for stuff that is actually not just immoral but illegal in a country like Britain, where we have a free press, but we don’t give them First Amendment immunity. And where we do expect them to obey other relevant laws to. If you think the Mail is violating your copyright for example, you can actually take them to court. You don’t need to find a Mail hating activist like Macon to help you use Wikipedia to air your sad little grievances. He does that for free anyway, cunt that he is.
  • At Anne Frank, Macon chews out an editor for dominating the debate, as if his is the only opinion that matters. On the subject of the Mail, you’re lucky if you can go a day without Macon shoving his dick in your face. Which is an unpleasant experience at any time, but particularly when Guy Chapman has been eating sweetcorn.

In short, what explains these differences? It being rather obvious that the similarities are simply down to his horrible personality and the lack of an effective process for determining who is and is not allowed to be a part of that sick community (but to be fair, when Guy Chapman is considered a top of the line model, you aren’t going to be attracting any superstars).

Well, to explain the differences, it seems pretty clear that Macon is doing everything he professes to hate. For any given dispute, he clearly has a pre-ordained view, clearly wants that view to prevail by fair means or foul, and he will adjust his opinion on the sourcing requirements of Wikipedia depending on whether he thinks he has support in sources, or he doesn’t. He’s not above telling straight up lies, presumably because there are no consequences for doing so on Wikipedia. Not if you’ve been there a whole ten fourteen years.

In other words, he is a cunt. You could even call him a clever cunt, and being a dumb American, he probably wouldn’t even realize that’s not an implication that he is intelligent, except in the Hitler was a pretty smart dude to have figured out how to turn a democracy into a dictatorship kind of way. Here’s hoping Macon shares the same fate, because he truly deserves it.

On a side note, is there anything more Wikipedia than caring more about the reputation of a long dead girl, than of the hundreds of people who make their living from journalism? People who, if you bothered to read the sources, already know most of what you say about the Mail is a dirty lie, a clear smear campaign born out of your hatred and jealousy of a successful right wing mass market paper whose popularity wasn’t even remotely dented by the unsurprising realization that the left leaning Guardian loving Wikicunts hate it with a passion.

I mean, shit, yes, would we all like to live in a world where newspapers never tell a lie, never make a mistake, never fail to check whether a person claiming to be a freelance journalist is in fact a campaign supporter of the most left leaning fuck ever to stand for British Prime Minister in fifty years. But we don’t.

We live in a world where The Guardian is allowed to be a newspaper, and Jimmy Wales is allowed to make a buck by joining their board, but apparently only to tell them not to earn their living by persuading advertisers that their journalism is top quality, or even by directly asking readers to pay for it, but to go the Wikipedia way, and just beg people for money.

Because if you don’t support The Guardian, what on Earth would Wikipedia have to rely on for sourcing? Books! Academics? Experts? Don’t be silly. The Guardian is the only source you will ever need to judge the reliability of the Mail.

After all, why wouldn’t you trust a paper that doesn’t even vet the credentials of those who submit stories to it, and the proposed copy (Jeremy Corbyn unable to find a seat on a train! Nationalise EVERYTHING!) speaks so well to your editorial stance?

Who knows, maybe when Macon isn’t thinking about fifteen year old girls, he’s making a buck or ten posing as a freelance journalist? You don’t think he wouldn’t? Why not? Liars gonna lie. Activists gonna activism. You don’t even need to have been on a train, to lie about how full it was, after all. You do have to be pretty stupid not to realize trains have CCTV, but does Guy Macon strike you as particularly intelligent?