Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the like-regular-protection,-but-super dept.

Wikipedia 239

metasonix writes: As if the problems brought up during the recent 2014 Wikimania conference weren't enough, now Wikipedia is having an outright battle between its editor and administrator communities, especially on the German-language Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, currently flush with cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the editor community, who has repeatedly responded by disabling the software. This time, however, Foundation Deputy Director Erik Moeller had the bright idea to create a new level of page protection to prevent the new software from being disabled. "Superprotection" has resulted in an outright revolt on the German Wikipedia. There has been subsequent coverage in the German press, and people have issued demands that Moeller, one of Wikipedia's oldest insiders, be removed from his job. One English Wikipedia insider started a change.org petition demanding the removal of superprotection."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bureaucracy in action (1, Insightful)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a month ago | (#47724459)

bigger is better and all that.

Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724581)

So I recently heard about a programming language called Nimrod [nimrod-lang.org] . It's relatively new, but it's very capable and even the venerable Dr. Dobb's Journal featured it recently.

I wanted to get a broader overview of it, so I thought I'd check out Wikipedia's article about it. After all, it's a language I'd managed to hear about, and I don't keep up to date with developments in the field very much these days. It was even featured by a widely read publication. So that should make it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, right? Nope.

I quickly found out that the notability idiots over at Wikipedia have repeatedly chosen to target it for elimination [wikipedia.org] .

I tried reading some of their justification for deleting the article, but it made absolutely no sense. It's a perfectly good topic to cover, and clearly I and others want to read about it! Yet these totalitarian shitbags feel the need to censor, censor, censor and then censor some more.

The harm these monsters do by getting rid of useful articles far, far outweighs any harm that could ever be done by having allegedly "non-notable" articles exist uncensored. I'd totally rather than the article about Nimrod stay, and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off and visit some other web site.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (4, Insightful)

insanecarbonbasedlif (623558) | about a month ago | (#47724993)

I quickly found out that the notability idiots over at Wikipedia have repeatedly chosen to target it for elimination [wikipedia.org] .

They've been doing this for years, and long ago burned out my interest in contributing. I've seen 3 pages I helped create/curate get deleted. Happily 2 of the three eventually were re-created by others a year or two later, but a lot of work was destroyed. Let them have their "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" slogan - I'll continue to be a parasite reading without contributing unless they clean up their practices to prevent the destruction of good articles.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

chfriley (160627) | about 2 months ago | (#47725059)

You are right, the whole "notability" standard at Wikipedia has been f'd up for years. Someone notable today, may be much less notable than someone from 100 years ago, but the person from a century ago might not be as notable to people today. Instead of trying to build a repository of accurate knowledge and information, Wikipedia is more concerned about building up fiefdoms of power for the editors and managers, which is too bad.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 2 months ago | (#47725313)

You know what? I already have a great "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It even has a pretty decent Table of Contents called Google.

It's far more complete than Wikipedia, and in reality, no less accurate. Which should be taken as damning praise of the wikifools.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47725099)

Wiki has been seriously screwed up with it's own internal politics for a very long time now. I would say even before the political cretins started trying to carpetbag it.

However, "Nimrod" is a pretty horrible name for any project as despite it's mythological roots, it's rather well recognized in the English speaking cultures as being a another name for an idiot.

The person who named that project must be a real nimrod.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725153)

[Nimrod is] rather well recognized in the English speaking cultures as being a another name for an idiot.

It is? Can't say I've never heard of that.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725337)

Nor I. And I have been in English-speaking cultures all my 70+ years.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (2, Informative)

morethanapapercert (749527) | about 2 months ago | (#47725701)

For what it's worth, I *have* heard the term used that way. In fact it's the only usage I've ever heard. I had vaguely known there was some other historical use, but like cretin , imbecile and moron, it's become a common derogatory word.

I suspect that it is a regional thing. English speaking nations all have their unique slang terms after all. And many English speaking countries are also large enough to have regional differences within them. I'm not likely to ever call a person a drongo, wombat, poof (Australian), berk, bint, chav or pikey (British) or wigger, jagoff, ratchet or ho (American)

Despite being Canadian, I'd never call someone "b'y" (Newfoundland), skookum or siwash (British Columbia)

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (5, Funny)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 months ago | (#47725749)

Being Canadian, you'd apologize for the intrusion and occupation of their time, and ask them the name by which they prefer to be addressed, then apologize for not having known it beforehand, then apologize for having so many apologies.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726041)

Sorry aboot that.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

Camael (1048726) | about 2 months ago | (#47725873)

I had vaguely known there was some other historical use, but like cretin , imbecile and moron, it's become a common derogatory word. I suspect that it is a regional thing. English speaking nations all have their unique slang terms after all.

The derogatory meaning associated with nimrod appears to be an exclusively American slang [wiktionary.org] .

I find it highly amusing that this form of usage likely originates from Bugs Bunny cartoons [urbandictionary.com] !

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725639)

http://www.merriam-webster.com... [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 months ago | (#47725253)

The only historical connection is get to Nimrod is biblical: "Nimrod, that mighty hunter". I could look it up, but I don't remember any context. The only current connection I get it to the SF book "The Nimrod Project" in which Nimrod is used because...guess what?...they're building a super-intelligent hunter.

I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 2 months ago | (#47725419)

I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".

If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod" [urbandictionary.com] , I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.

I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (2)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 2 months ago | (#47725497)

I would say that Nimrod is very well know as a term for idiot. I think most everyone I know would think of "idiot" before they thought of "hunter". I don't think I learned the meaning "hunter" until I was in my 20's. That is in the US of course, might be different elsewhere, perhaps places where Loony Tunes was less well known (Bugs Bunny calling Elmer Fudd a "poor little Nimrod" is where it first picked up the "idiot" connotation). In any case it was widely understood when I was in elementary and high school (80's and 90's)

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725663)

Nimrod was a very common word meaning idiot in the 80s and 90s. I lived in Maryland, Washington State, Georgia, North Carolina, and Germany during that time. If any person every said "nimrod" they meant the same thing as "moron" or "idiot".

I'm not sure where you get your information, nimrod.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725323)

Wiki has been seriously screwed up with it's own internal politics for a very long time now. I would say even before the political cretins started trying to carpetbag it. However, "Nimrod" is a pretty horrible name for any project as despite it's mythological roots, it's rather well recognized in the English speaking cultures as being a another name for an idiot. The person who named that project must be a real nimrod.

Please learn the difference between its and it's if you're going to post in English, or we're going to call you an Nimrod.

Re: Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725601)

Likewise you may want to watch your use of 'an'. And me my lack if commas.

Re: Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47726061)

And your spelling of "of".

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (5, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 months ago | (#47725173)

I quickly found out that the notability idiots over at Wikipedia have repeatedly chosen to target it for elimination.

Yeah, this kind of stuff has been around a long time. I was somewhat active in the early days of Wikipedia, especially 2004-06 or so, and there would be these sorts of arguments all the time.

Back then, you'd have editors asserting that entire major academic subdisciplines didn't exist and try to go on a deletion spree. Thankfully, someone would eventually come along and be like, "Uh, I can cite a couple dozen journals that publish hundreds of pages on this stuff every year."

I've never understood the deletionist argument. It's one of many, many reasons I stopped trying to edit Wikipedia a long time ago. Somehow the world is a better place if we have a page on everyone's favorite episode of some obscure television show, but dare to include some other thing and it's "not notable." Notability is fundamentally broken on Wikipedia (as are a bunch of other things).

But think about it -- Wikipedia is a self-selecting bureaucratic community. The only people who stick around long are people used to arguing about nonsense policies, and thus it becomes self-reinforcing. Things like X aren't "notable" because the policy says they aren't notable, and the policy is arbitrated and modified by people like us, so... well, why not just say, "We don't want X here."

Of course, it's not that simple -- and I don't think most Wikipedia editors are actually trying to censor anything. But lots of important stuff can get caught in this weird feedback loop that "obviously it isn't notable" because, well nothing else like it is notable, because, well, our policies exclude those things, because, well, we designed the policies, because, well, people like us will always tend to write policies like that, but, well, we have to follow the policies.

The thing I've never quite understood is why deleted pages aren't archived. That tells you right away that the deletionist folks are obviously up to no good. Everything else is always archived on Wikipedia, and there are talk page debates that go on and on and on (if you want nerdy flame-worthy entertainment for an entire afternoon, someday go and read the talk page archive for "centrifugal force").

But for some reason we can't archive deleted pages. Why the heck not? Are we afraid that someone might come along again and argue that it shouldn't be deleted? Well, everybody else on Wikipedia argues continuously about sections of articles that have been reworded or links that were added or deleted or whatever -- and these arguments happen repeatedly. But for some reason, deletion is more-or-less final. There doesn't ever seem to be the idea that, "Hey, maybe we don't actually have enough qualified editors to FIND the notable stuff about this topic, and maybe we shouldn't permanently delete everything in case it turns out to have some good information, so people don't have to start over again and write the whole thing up again."

It's all weird. It's a weird place. And deletion policies are probably the most ridiculous thing they have.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (1)

adndgamer (1642545) | about 2 months ago | (#47725231)

Looking at the deletion log shows that it was originally nominated for removal back in 2010. Maybe it *wasn't* noteworthy back then. But then these idiots keep upholding the previous deletion vote, not bothering to check to see if it's still a valid ruling.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725295)

They've been doing this forever, you get some editors with a vendetta to keep certain things out of wikipedia.

For example there's editors that only want superhero comes with press coverage to have any content on wikipedia. No webcomics, no indy comics (unless published in Wizard) etc

Sarcastically insightful? :) (2)

jopsen (885607) | about 2 months ago | (#47725315)

I'd totally rather than the article about Nimrod stay, and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off and visit some other web site.

I can't tell if the people who modded you insightful were being sarcastic... :)
Okay, joke aside... Statements like everybody else can just **** of because something you wanted to read about was marked for deletion. Is part of the problem.

Wikipedia editors and can't get every decision right... If nimrod (which btw, think I've heard about before) continues it's growth, then I'm sure it'll eventually be featured on wikipedia.
Note, I didn't say the current decision is right, but give them a break. But give it time, and bring up again (don't be an edit warrior)

Also drop the " censor, censor, censor" rhetoric... You are free to publish this anywhere else. Why don't you just make a site with rejected wikipedia articles, where people can work on them till wikipedia is ready to accept them.

Re:Sarcastically insightful? :) (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 2 months ago | (#47725389)

Also drop the " censor, censor, censor" rhetoric... You are free to publish this anywhere else. Why don't you just make a site with rejected wikipedia articles, where people can work on them till wikipedia is ready to accept them.

Using MediaWiki as a nice touch.

Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (3, Informative)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | about 2 months ago | (#47725397)

Yes, deletionists are asshats.

One thing you can do is use the Wayback Machine to get the text of deleted articles. I learned about that trick on Wikipedia itself. Why can't they just include the page history of deleted pages well that's a really good question.

Deletionpedia is the protest response against deletionist asshats, but it's just getting started. It would be nice if an administrator leaked the text of all previously deleted articles to Deletionpedia. They actually KEEP THE DELETED ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA'S SERVERS and just DON'T LET ANYBODY LOOK AT THEM except the Anointed Ones. It's not even a disk space issue why they delete stuff. There's no justification at all; it's pure Vogonism.

So, come on, inclusionist administrators: which one of you would like to be the Internet's Prometheus? It wouldn't even be copyright infringement because the creators of the content licensed it CC to put it in Wikipedia to begin with. WE ALL own those deleted articles, not the tyrant bureaucrats at the Wikimedia Foundation. You'd be like Edward Snowden except you'd just be perma-banned from Wikipedia instead of your home country. Have some balls. Get 15 minutes of fame. BRING LIGHT TO THE WORLD.

If someone wants to kickstart a campaign to bribe an administrator into leaking all deleted articles to Deletionpedia, I'll put up $100. Maybe more. I'm not kidding. THIS IS THE GOOD FIGHT.

---linuxrocks123

Obligatory (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 months ago | (#47726007)

Malamanteau [xkcd.com] , and the edit war that ensued.

Wiktionary is just as bad. They have a whole category devoted to words that exist but seemingly don't [wiktionary.org] . If you want to put the kangamangus on those dotnoses, ozay; head to urban dictionary instead.

Re:bureaucracy in action (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about 2 months ago | (#47725805)

A change.org petition has been started, asking the Wikimedia Foundation to remove superprotection. Sign here: http://www.change.org/p/lila-t... [change.org]

Re:bureaucracy in action (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about 2 months ago | (#47725833)

The title of the petition [change.org] is: Petitioning Lila Tretikov. Remove new "superprotect" status; and permit Wikipedia communities to enact (current) software decisions uninhibited.

Alternatively, people who have a Wikipedia or Wikimedia account can sign here on Meta [wikimedia.org] . (Only sign in one of these places.)

Mitre be a problem here (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a month ago | (#47724467)

> Superprotection mandate

Call it Ex Cathedra and get it over with.

Re:Mitre be a problem here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724963)

Only the ubermensch can enable superprotection. as it should be!

say it again (3, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47724469)

It's almost like the idea of letting everyone edit something actually does in fact turn into a crooked, biased shitstorm and wikipedia was wrong and everyone else in the world was right.

Re:say it again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724595)

Are you retarded?

Re:say it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724665)

ftfs:

people have issued demands that Moeller, one of Wikipedia's oldest insiders, be removed from his job.

people are issuing demands all the time that I should be removed from my job. I tell them "shut up, boss!"

Republicans get off on deleting information (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724471)

Expect the deletionists to continue destroying information. They hate information and want to see it all destroyed.

Re:Republicans get off on deleting information (1)

Teancum (67324) | about a month ago | (#47724789)

At least they are objective about destroying information. The mergists simply want to unify all of Wikipedia into a single article that everybody can simultaneously edit and admins can edit protect to admin-only.

Re:Republicans get off on deleting information (1)

Chas (5144) | about a month ago | (#47724969)

Expect the deletionists to continue destroying information. They hate information and want to see it all destroyed.

Oh grow the fuck up Lois Lerner.

Re:Republicans get off on deleting information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725235)

Hard drives just quit. Anyone that says they don't doesn't have enough experience with them to know better. That's why you have backups. If hard drives didn't just quit, you wouldn't need them.

Re:Republicans get off on deleting information (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47725725)

So do so-called 'progressive's. The real delineation is one of ideological conflict with reality. The more the defended ideology conflicts, the more often its defenders justify censorship to keep it afloat. The last 100 years of politics should've taught us all this.

Germans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724475)

Let's not get the Germans angry.
We know how well that worked out last time.

Re:Germans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724553)

Yea, that wasn't so good for much of Europe and German's specifically.

As long as they don't invade the Polish WikiPedia, we are safe I guess.

So, how does one change their nickname? I want to claim Nevil Chamberlain now...

Re:Germans (2)

xevioso (598654) | about a month ago | (#47724661)

I'm sure the Russians would be pretty irritated at first but would manage to take over the German Wikipedia after a while.

Poor dears (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724477)

The censors don't like being censored, eh? I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight, weeping over their plight.

Re:Poor dears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725465)

What a day to have no mod points.

Change.org is just another bulletin board (4, Informative)

Verdatum (1257828) | about a month ago | (#47724483)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a month ago | (#47724527)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

You mean any idiot with 12 idiot friends.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724573)

It doesn't take friends.. Just stand on the street corner and ask folks if they care... You can get folks sign anything if you couch the issue correctly.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (5, Funny)

Carewolf (581105) | about a month ago | (#47724607)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

You mean any idiot with 12 idiot friends.

You make it sound like the new testamant.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724777)

What's old is new.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (0)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 months ago | (#47725229)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

You mean any idiot with 12 idiot friends.

You make it sound like the new testamant.

Nah, that's not quite accurate. For the New Testament, you'd need any idiot with 11 idiot friends and one guy pretending to be his friend while actually plotting to kill him.

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (1)

thieh (3654731) | about a month ago | (#47724761)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

You mean any idiot with 12 idiot friends.

I think he meant any idiot with access to 13 different IP addresses/proxies and 12 sock puppets

Re:Change.org is just another bulletin board (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47725065)

A petition with 13 signatures is not worth mentioning. Any idiot can set one up.

You mean any idiot with 12 idiot friends.

I think he meant any idiot with access to 13 different IP addresses/proxies and 12 sock puppets

Or Tor and the refresh button.

Democrats get off on controlling information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724487)

Expect the censors and revisionist to continue controlling the narrative. They hate factual information and want to see if all controlled to their narrative or destroyed.

maybe... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a month ago | (#47724489)

This is what we need to stave off beta.

Slashdot [Superprotection needed].

Re:maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724649)

In case you missed it, in this story Dice would be the Wikimedia Foundation, the community (*not* audience) would be the editors rolling back the new software (Beta).

Superprotection is the Dice override of the community's revolt in order to foist Beta on us.

So, uh, be careful what you wish for. Think about it: who has admin rights on their severs? That would be who gets superprotection authority. Hint: it's not us.

TLDR (4, Informative)

Moses48 (1849872) | about a month ago | (#47724491)

The summary doesn't describe the "flawed system" or what superprotection means. Here it is from the change petition

The "superprotect" page status introduced to keep the Media Viewer enabled is even more extreme: for the first time, a software feature has been designed to take the ability to edit pages away from Wikimedia project communities, giving that ability exclusively to unelected Wikimedia staff members.

Re:TLDR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724773)

This is just a natural extension of the program those editors themselves use to protect their own personal wikipedia fiefdoms from editing by the rabble. They finding the tools they themselves used too much of a burden when used upon themselves?

Media Viewer (5, Insightful)

Mr 44 (180750) | about a month ago | (#47724787)

I really don't get the uproar. The crux of the issue seems to be that an update to the software running all the various instances of Wikipedia enabled a new slideshow viewer [wikipedia.org] by default, and removed the ability for site admins to disable it by default (but users still can individually choose their preference).

Tempest in a teapot?

Re:Media Viewer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725013)

I really don't get the uproar. Tempest in a teapot?

It's not a teapot! Wikipediocracy is an entire webpage devoted to bitching and moaning about Wikipedia gossip and politics. Little known fact: WMF is actually a front for Nazi Germany and Jimmy Wales is just a robot with Hitler's brain in it. The sad persecution of the Wikipediocracy community by these villains exceeds the level of the most heinous war crimes of the 20th century on a daily basis. There's a change.org petition to have all Wikipedia administrators drawn and quartered at the Hague. Please sign!

Re:Media Viewer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725025)

Oh. That's what that thing is. I was wondering why the regular image page had been replaced by that overlay crap. At least they document how to turn it off (if you have an account).

Re:Media Viewer (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#47725177)

by default, and removed the ability for site admins to disable it by default

The problem is these "admins" are acting on behalf of the various Wikipedia communities as a whole. How WP is run, is supposed to be decided by the community.

If these "admins" actually administered the underlying infrastructure as well, this would be a non-issue, as they could simply refuse the software upgrade, or patch it.

The WMF is entrusted with this task, but the WMF is betraying the trust of the community. I think I might ask for my donations to be returned to me, since they are no longer acting according to their mission.

Re:Media Viewer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725901)

And not a single damned person cares for the media viewer. They've apparently run out of new features to add to MediaWiki.

Most open communities get turned into cesspools. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724495)

Good God, Wikipedia used to be something worthwhile to contribute to. But those days are long, long gone.

We've seen this happen to a lot of these open community-based projects or websites lately. All it takes is a few bad apples, and the entire project or site can be derailed and destroyed by their stupid ideas, petty squabbling and raging hard-ons for authoritarianism.

Like Wikipedia, Hacker News and Stack Overflow are particularly bad for this, and reddit isn't far behind them. Any sort of original thought is thoroughly crushed at those sites. If you dare question the established religiously-held beliefs or order of things at those sites, at best you'll be shunned, but most likely you'll be censored by way of downmodding and banning.

I'll give Slashdot some credit, it has actually managed to avoid crap like that comparatively well. Maybe it's the liberal use of anonymous posting here, or the more limited moderation system. Regardless, Slashdot is a clean and friendly place to have open discussion, at least compared to Hacker News, reddit, Wikipedia and Stack Overflow.

Re:Come to Simple English Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724571)

Join the Simple English Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] community. We are fun. We don't have the doodie heads like the other Wikipedia communities. We don't have big words or hard sentences. We are all one big happy potato.

Yay, Simple English!

Re:Come to Simple English Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724625)

ayy lmao

Re:Most open communities get turned into cesspools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724663)

Haven't noticed it on SO proper. If you mean meta, well yeah. That's what meta is all about. Protecting the party line.

Re:Most open communities get turned into cesspools (4, Interesting)

edremy (36408) | about 2 months ago | (#47726009)

I'll give Slashdot some credit, it has actually managed to avoid crap like that comparatively well. Maybe it's the liberal use of anonymous posting here, or the more limited moderation system. Regardless, Slashdot is a clean and friendly place to have open discussion, at least compared to Hacker News, reddit, Wikipedia and Stack Overflow.

I find this comment amusing, since every time I mention Microsoft in any form of positive light I'm downmodded. I mentioned the MS Surface the other day and commented that it was proving a very nice tool for developing online learning materials. Downmodded instantly as "Troll"

Slashdot has serious groupthink issues and always has.

Can someone explain what this is about? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724511)

I stopped following what goes on with wikipedia and editing a few years ago. I was not as much annoyed that my edits would not survive long, it just started feeling a useless endeavor when I saw so many topics I would search to read about were deleted. I mean, if I and a few others search for something without having any connection to it, it is "notable" by definition isn't it? Otherwise I can just delete "Nigeria". Sure, a lot of people would like to look it up, but I, as a wikipedia editor and supreme being, think that country is not notable.

Re:Can someone explain what this is about? (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47724983)

A subject is "notable" if it is the subject of substantial coverage in three unaffiliated reliable sources. If a subject is not notable, then it's not possible to make any verifiable claims about the subject.

Re:Can someone explain what this is about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725487)

Oh yeah? An example someone above mentioned. You google "Nimrod programming language", gives you what I would call substantial coverage. Well, wiki editors have a different definition of "substantial coverage"?

Re:Can someone explain what this is about? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47725623)

Is there substantial coverage from several people who are "unaffiliated" (part of the Nimrod team)?

Is this unaffiliated substantial coverage? (2)

Camael (1048726) | about 2 months ago | (#47725961)

Since no one answered this question, I did a simple google search which threw up these results :-

Nimrod: A New Systems Programming Language [drdobbs.com]
Category:Nimrod [rosettacode.org]
Consider the Nimrod Programming Language [wordpress.com]
What I like about the Nimrod programming language [sharanet.org]
Araq/Nimrod [github.com]
Nimrod: A New Approach to Metaprogramming [infoq.com]
Nimrod: A new statically typed, compiled programming language which supports metaprogramming [lambda-the-ultimate.org]

I am just a layman when it comes to Wikipedia editing, but it looks pretty substantial to me. It would appear that the complaint that notability requirements are too strict has just cause.

Re:Can someone explain what this is about? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47726087)

I'd actually like to see a summary of the issue that's not written by someone who is obviously biased.
"As if .. weren't enough", "flush with cash", "trying to force", and so on. It's just bad political writing, the sort that makes college newspapers seem level headed.
Maybe the admins have a valid point but the hysterical tone makes me inclined to dismiss it and definitely stopped me cold from bother to follow the links.

This sounds familiar (5, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about a month ago | (#47724515)

The Wikimedia Foundation, currently flush with cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the editor community, who has repeatedly responded by disabling the software.

Dice. Beta. Enough said.

Re:This sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725793)

The Wikimedia Foundation, currently flush with cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the editor community, who has repeatedly responded by disabling the software.

Dice. Beta. Enough said.

lol I had totally forgot about the beta ever since that shit storm... Just went to slashdot beta to see how they changed it in response to user feedback and there are *still* no fundamental changes to slashdot beta after... what now?? Six months? Fuck beta.

Agile can fuck off. (4, Interesting)

__Paul__ (1570) | about a month ago | (#47724547)

FTFA: a little pain was just part of the “Agile” way of doing things

Agile is now infecting the open-source world? Fuck it, I'm out. It's bad enough having to put up with all the "agile" bullshit at work, from their utterly pointless daily stand-up meetings to their fucking little cards on the wall everywhere (managers of the world: WE USE ELECTRONIC TRACKING SYSTEMS NOW). Add to that the unbearable Friday "retrospective" meetings (yeah, the last fucking thing I want to do on a Friday is sit in another pointless meeting talking about our problems) and then the Monday three hour meetings where we waste time voting on how long it should take other people to do their job instead of just fucking doing it.

Agile has killed any enjoyment there was in the IT field. If people are trying to pollute the open-source world with it, they can fuck off.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724593)

" Fuck it, I'm out."
Don't let the door hit you in the ass
Don't need to slop spaghetti code shit.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724683)

In my experience, Agile results in poor, ad hoc, designs that are not good enough for the products end goal. They also result in quick, works-for-me/now fixes to things that make shit harder down the line. Agile is far more likely to result in spaghetti code than proper planning is.

Of course, if you're using grails or any other dynamic language you've already conceded your code base to the realm of unmaintainable, so maybe you don't give a shit how hard it is to modify/fix in two years time. Lol, we'll just scrum until someone else beats us to market.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a month ago | (#47724601)

At work, we have to use little cards on the wall AND an electronic tracking system.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (2)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about a month ago | (#47724653)

Agile development is the fastest way to organically grow your shitstorm.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724659)

My experience has been the opposite, agile makes work more enjoyable, since we work as a team together, we can unite against authoritative bullshit.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47725927)

It gets in the way of getting shit done because it adds too much bureaucratic overhead, which is its own form of tyranny.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about a month ago | (#47724723)

To be fair, Agile can be freaking awesome. I worked at a devotedly Agile shop and it was a developerocratic utopia. After the few meetings we had, all participants walked away with legitimate action items. You didn't just get called in to listen to something that didn't concern you - if you were invited, it's because you were specifically needed.

I've also worked in places where Agile was a stultifying cover story for "actually waterfall but that doesn't sound as cool so we'll never admit it". That might be the kind of /dev/hell you found yourself stuck in. But that's not Agile Done Right, and shops that Do Agile Right really do exist.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47725143)

I've also worked in places where Agile was a stultifying cover story for "actually waterfall but that doesn't sound as cool so we'll never admit it".

That's my environment. They've stopped trying to say 'Agile' with a straight face.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47726053)

Fred Brooks correctly pointed out that if you have a small development team (something like 20 or less), then pretty near any development methodology can work, if the team is good. Waterfall? That can be done. Extreme? Sure. Everyone work from home and email each other when they need something? Yup.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724741)

Agile is now infecting the open-source world? Fuck it, I'm out

In a fair world, I'd be able to give all 15 of my moderator points to this comment to mod it up.

One just doesn't seem sufficient.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724783)

Holy Shit -- your job sounds like hell man. I've seen some pretty pointless agile crap like daily stand-ups, but nothing near the cluster fuck you describe. The problem is with your organization, not the Agile methodology itself. I'd say start looking for another job elsewhere, the market is booming and companies are offering top dollar so you can probably get a hefty raise while you're at it.

Re:Agile can fuck off. (1)

SimonInOz (579741) | about 2 months ago | (#47725107)

Oh yeah. Agile is institutionalised micromanagement.
It's horrible. Nobody ever gets the opportunity to actually think, there is no global view, there are no innovations.
But big piles (I use the word advisedly) of code get written - and tested.

And "sprints" ... has any actual sprinter tried to keep doing "sprints"? Get a bit tired and inefficient, did they? Paint me surprised.

WTF? Can someone summarize? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about a month ago | (#47724687)

I know all of those words but still have no idea WTF the summary is talking about. Does this boil down to "Wikipedia teens with infinite free time are trying to build fiefdoms", which is the usual explanation for Wikidrama?

Re:WTF? Can someone summarize? (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47725073)

No, it's more like "Buck Feta".

MediaWiki has a tool called "common.js" to let an admin edit the sitewide JavaScript. Wikimedia Foundation staff are trying to push unpopular user interface changes onto Wikipedia. The admins are using common.js to override the changes and restore the previous behavior for anonymous visitors. So WMF staff have superprotected [wikipedia.org] the pages to keep even local admins from editing them.

Come on, people! (0)

sootman (158191) | about 2 months ago | (#47725077)

I know change.org petitions are mostly worthless from the point of view of getting a meaningful response back from the government, but if you EVER want the government to take them seriously, quit using it for shit like this.

I'd have more respect for a 1st-grader using it to get his school to serve chocolate milk, than I do for this idiot wikipedia editor who thinks it's the proper venue for something like this.

Re:Come on, people! (0)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 2 months ago | (#47725179)

No shit. Using change.org for this sort of thing is like bitching to the manager of a Walmart about how the McDonalds in another town screwed up your order, and you expect him to fix it.

Challange Accepted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725343)

this sort of thing is like bitching to the manager of a Walmart about how the McDonalds in another town screwed up your order, and you expect him to fix it..

change.org != change.gov (2)

pavon (30274) | about 2 months ago | (#47725447)

change.gov and change.org are two completely different sites. The .gov site is the official petition website for the US government. The .org site is like wordpress for petitions. Anyone can go an create a petition for any reason, and it has about as much weight as a wordpress blog does, which is to say most are completely meaningless, but on occasion once actually gets some momentum, and it is that momentum (not the petition itself) that matters.

Re:change.org != change.gov (1)

sootman (158191) | about 2 months ago | (#47725503)

Oh, duh, I didn't even catch that. OK, so it's not actively damaging, just totally worthless. :-)

I just don't understand why (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 2 months ago | (#47725331)

I just don't understand why is it so stinking hard to tell "or god forbid ask" your users you have a new feature and to give it a try instead they force feed it down peoples throats. Just like the Beta here. IMO they were copying what other sites are doing which IMO makes them all ugly over sized images and too many images. Why not ask? geeze Just my 2 cents

Re:I just don't understand why (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#47725947)

Because.. it's not a website. It's an 'experience'! which is just newspeak for the assumption that users need/want it fed to them through a needle because they don't know what's best for themselves. This mentality has infected local software and UIs too.

WikiWand (2, Interesting)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about 2 months ago | (#47725769)

What's become clear here [wikimedia.org] (see also following section) is that the Wikimedia Foundation is afraid it will lose readers to sites like WikiWand [wikiwand.com] that offer Wikipedia content as a pure consumable with a much more aesthetically pleasing interface. The moment Wikipedia page views go down, the Alexa rank will go down and donations will go down, as fewer people will see the fundraising banners. The problem is that the Foundation's own efforts to create a more pleasing interface have been unsuccessful; they have the money, but simply seem to lack the talent and experience. Partly they are also hampered by the underlying coding chaos of Wikipedia – underneath the Wikipedia text, there are thousands of ad-hoc templates created in a very inconsistent manner by volunteers over the years. This is the main reason the VisualEditor failed.

This story was also covered by The Register [theregister.co.uk] .

Superprotection Misunderstanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47725883)

I thought this article was about wearing three condoms for superprotection. My mistake.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?