[flagged]
You’re conflating the Wikipedia comunity with the Wikimedia foundation: lots of editors don’t agree with what the foundation does, especially regarding donations.
There is space on the internet for more than one article about Wikipedia.
Other than that, agreed.
Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.
Also $3M is a hilarious undercount and shows your own lack of understanding, because what good is some metal without ops, software maintenance, and support services? Might you also count the lawyers who get editors out of jail, or the specialists who handle CSAM so the volunteers don't have to, or does that count as part of the jetset board too?
Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that? Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?
Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.
Why look past it? It's an important criticism and helps describe why the interviewee's answers lack depth and wisdom.
>discuss the unblockables
Wikipedia doesn't want to block them, nor do they try. Influence peddlers, NGOs, etc., are the most prolific editors.
>Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.
You're entering a lecture on the role of class-based modalities in Shakespearean scansion and demanding the professor explain the "i before e" rule. If you're not aware of the most fundamental aspects of the discussion then remove yourself from the conversation. Searching "wikipedia editors bullying" will return you tons of resources on this basic fact, including *an article on Wikipedia about that widespread phenomenon,* with examples.
No one is obligated to teach you the absolute basics of the topic or refrain from relying on them in an argument because you're personally uninformed.
>Also $3M is a hilarious undercount
Read the audit
>Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that?
Am I?
>does that count as part of the jetset board too?
Why would they? How is that related?
> Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?
Does she? And?
>Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.
I'd have preferred another article? Okay
They dont even bother to search for sock puppets.
Or make admin edits anonymous, so admins can be judged
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Universal_Code_...
But how many paid wikimedia employees are involved in the governance/moderation of the platform? How many times have admins and established editors bullied or banned new editors needlessly just so their own work can stay up?
Hopefully none, because each instance should govern/moderate itself.
> the project contained an unusually high number of articles written in poor-quality Scots. They were written by a single prolific contributor, who was an American teenager. These articles consisted of mostly English instead of Scots vocabulary and grammar. It is claimed that the editor apparently used an online English–Scots dictionary to translate parts of English Wikipedia articles word-to-word in disregard of its grammar.
> Over 23,000 articles, approximately a third of the entire Scots Wikipedia at that time, were created by the editor. These articles have been described as "English written in a Scottish accent," with gibberish and nonsensical words and spellings not present in any Scots dialect.