User talk:Hoof Hearted/Archive5 - 2016: Difference between revisions

I've submitted patches in the past for open-source software, and found that it can be hard to get them merged in if you're an outsider.

Anyway, Wikimedia went in the direction of Wikidata, but doesn't seem to have really leveraged its full potential yet. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:35, 10 December 2017 (PST)

:I think the reason [[:Category:Semantic MediaWiki|SMW]] didn't gain much traction and reach out to a wider audience is probably two-fold.  First, it was never supported by [[:Category:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] - which sorta pushed SMW onto the ropes before it even got out of its corner; second, SMW is actually quite a difficult and unforgiving bunch of software.  Whilst I understand the fundamental principles of SMW, and understand its very real value of enabling wikis into highly structured data, I think that marrying SMW to [[:Category:MediaWiki|MediaWiki]] would cause severe problems.  Not in compatibility, more so because MediaWiki is just so <u>easy</u> for even the most illiterate software users to grasp, whereas SMW probably requires a degree in computer programming to get the best out of it! I think had the proposed MediaWiki Foundation (the one for specific independent MW users) taken off, there ''could'' have been a real opportunity for SMW.org to merge, or at least form a much closer partnership with MWF.  And there is real need for advanced data handling in wikis - the business world are turning to the likes of [[:Category:Socialtext|Socialtext]] (which combines wiki with advanced social networking, high level data handling and spreadsheet functions) or [[:Category:EditMe|EditMe]] (similar to Socialtext, without the strong emphasis on social networking, but concentrating on data, spreadsheet and CMS).

:[[Wikimedia Wikidata]] is strange.  It is capable of comprehensive data, but it isn't structured in orthodox formats of relational databases, nor even the lesser data handling features of spreadsheets.  The quality of data is at the peril of Wikipedia editors - ''some'' data is well referenced, but an awful lot is general info sourced from quite literally anywhere on the 'net.  One example is when Wikidata is relying on IMDb for referencing - yet IMDb is exactly like Wikipedia - user-generated content (usually fandom) - and so can not be consistently relied upon.

::On wikis like that, people will get into fights and take strong positions about stuff that, in reality, they could be wrong about. For example, if you read Hitler's ''Mein Kampf'', there's quite a lot of stuff in there that's plausible. Can't say that on a site like RW, though. And probably you couldn't say it on, say, your [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] userpage either. Wikipedia has to keep bringing in those donations by avoiding controversies that will lead to negative media coverage. After all, when it comes down to it, Wikimedia has a lot to hide. They have a lot of money, yet they keep begging for more, and they waste it on big salaries for unnecessary staff. It's actually pretty scandalous, but the media doesn't call them out on it because Wikimedia is mostly pretty aligned with the left-of-center mainstream media bias. (Wikimedia is also pretty well aligned with the values of its Silicon Valley funders, most notably Google.)

::The way that Wikipedia arbitrators operate is like a corporate HR department -- increasingly, they speak in a dehumanized [[:Category:Law|legalese]] and shroud their decision-making process in as much secrecy as possible. Also, just like in a major corporation, the elections are pretty meaningless to the average plebe. If you own a few shares of stock in a company, and you get a proxy to vote on, do you really know who any of these board member candidates are, or have any idea which ones would be best to elect? These arbitrator candidates are pretty obscure too. And at any rate, a lot of the more interesting users, who might have been agents of change by running for ArbCom, have been banned and therefore aren't eligible to run. Or they quit the project in disgust after they get burnt out.

::Being "welcome" is a fuzzy concept sometimes. I've been told point-blank that I'm not welcome on any Wikimedia site. Yet, sometimes after I get unmasked (aka checkusered) and kicked off again, someone will say that I should try to get right with Wikimedia so I can come back. If they were going to be strict about saying that I'm unwelcome there, they should tell that user, "Don't encourage him." Maybe they just happen to know that what people say to me won't have much effect on me, so they don't even bother to tell anyone, "Don't encourage him."

::::What is ''The Daily Stormer''? Mostly a comedy site. Are they cool with James Fields running over a bunch of people in Charlottesville? Some of them probably are. But, when it was a normie web site, there probably were a few more moderate people hanging out too. We can expect that when it's pushed into Tor-land, it's probably going to become more extreme, plus there's less transparency; the public is not going to be able to as easily directly monitor what they're up to, unless they go out of their way to get onto Tor and take a look. The whole point of pushing the site onto Tor was to make it harder for people to access.

::::We have a system now where, if you want to speak freely about ideas that are outside the Overton window, you basically have to sacrifice your whole life to do it. Andrew Anglin has to keep his location hidden so that he doesn't get served with lawsuits. Others have had SJWs call up their workplace and get them fired from jobs. So, the dissidents end up retreating even further, to wikis, Discord servers, etc. that aren't even known to the general public. I probably spend about half or two-thirds of my time on a non-public wiki that isn't listed on WikiIndex and never will be. The owner of it has it set up that way so that he can continue working at a corporate job and earning six figures and living in the suburbs with his wife and kid. It's that "Nazi next door" phenomenon, except unlike Tony Hovater, he's going to try to stay out of the ''New York Times''.