ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 22, 2016

A portrait in SJW convergence

The dark side of Wikipedia:
The promise of accurate, neutral articles and privacy for contributors is often just a mirage, according to two insiders. They say they've been left battle-scarred after troubling personal encounters with the world's most popular encyclopedia.

It's billed as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." But for many, it's the opposite.

Greg Kohs is among the blocked. Banned, he says, for challenging Wikipedia policies.

Kohs: Just in the past four hours, 500 IP addresses and users have been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

In 2012, Kohs helped start an opposing website called, "Wikipediocracy," to expose what he calls Wikipedia's "misinformation, defamation and general nonsense."

Sharyl: So Wikipedia does censor users?

Kohs: Absolutely. In a given day, Wikipedia administrators typically are blocking about 1,000 different IP addresses.

Sharyl: 1,000 a day?

Kohs: 1,000 a day. Yes.

When Kohs ran afoul of Wikipedia, he was drawn into an unseen cyberworld. One where he says volunteer editors dole out punishment and retaliation, privacy is violated and special interests control information.

Sharyl: Most people don't know what?

Kohs: Wikipedia is often edited by people who have an agenda.
As I wrote in SJWAL, the near-complete convergence of social media is the reason that it is necessary for the alt-right to develop superior, broad-spectrum alternatives to everything from Twitter and Tumblr to Facebook and Wikipedia.

There will be many challenges, not least of which is resisting the temptation to be bought out by these ludicrously well-funded profitless corporations. I have no doubt that Facebook, for one, will expertly play the Microsoft strategy of acquire and conquer. But those challenges must be met, all the same, because leaving the intersection of money, technology, and media under the control of SJWs means the intellectual enchainment of humanity.

And this behavior on the part of SJW Wikipedians goes well beyond creepy and reaches downright scary. Notice the typical SJW behavior of targeting their opponents' jobs.
Kohs sees himself as an equalizer. His business helps clients, including supposed victims of unfair edits, navigate Wikipedia's unbridled landscape. Wikipedia banned him for violating the policy against paid editing and when Kohs criticized the policy and continued under a borrowed account, Wikipedia editors targeted him.

They went to great lengths to track him, using inside information and computer addresses. They researched where Kohs grew up, and traced his movements all the way to Orlando, Florida, where he was making edits while on vacation.

Sharyl: Wikipedia editors that you didn't know at the time were tracking your movements, speculating that you went home for Thanksgiving?

Kohs: That's absolutely correct.

He only discovered that he was being tracked because somebody leaked internal Wikipedia discussions about him.

Kohs: And then somebody chimed in, 'looks like someone went home for Thanksgiving to visit mom and dad,' so you think you're editing with some degree of privacy, but if they want to they can really start to investigate.

Labels: ,

75 Comments:

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2016 8:10 AM  

The term Orwellian lost its descriptive power in much the same way satire is made so difficult.

It doesn't take much of a step back to see these days as complete collective insanity.

Anonymous Steve April 22, 2016 8:18 AM  

It's billed as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit."

Yeah. Just try editing it (not vandalising, editing). Your edit will quickly be reverted by the spergs who sit on Wikipedia articles like their own sad little fiefdoms. If you try again you'll be banned.

And not just on controversial topics. Pretty much any topic that's of interest to more than a handful of people.

Wikipedia is broke. Imagine a thousand fat neckbeards finger-painting in the medium of their own shite. That's Wikipedia.

Blogger Unknown April 22, 2016 8:36 AM  

VPN is your friend.

Anonymous Big Bill April 22, 2016 8:46 AM  

The same ceaseless SJW snipping and pruning is done at dictionary publishers to craft our very language.

When you find yourself accused of a hate crime for something you have spoken or written, think how convenient it is that the dictionary defines your words as "obsolete", "antiquated", and "pejorative".

Blogger Dexter April 22, 2016 8:55 AM  

On issues that I know well, the wiki articles are incomplete, defective, and often outright wrong. Which raises questions about the articles on issues I do not know well...

Blogger Escoffier April 22, 2016 9:01 AM  

Which is pretty a working definition of the gell Mann amnesia effect.

OpenID basementhomebrewer April 22, 2016 9:07 AM  

Wikipedia is only good for getting an extremely general outline of a particular topic. Most of the details should be viewed as coming from an SJW perspective. I use Wikipedia to get an idea of the who, what, and when. Then I search those things/people to try and find the real story and details.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 22, 2016 9:08 AM  

Agh! Lavender and purple? Did Big Gay Steve take over the layout here?

Blogger Nate April 22, 2016 9:11 AM  

The bit about getting Woods fired by cutting off his employers access to the site is the most damning part of all this. SJWs indeed.

Blogger Melampus the Seer April 22, 2016 9:29 AM  

Should the executives at Wikimedia be put on SJWlist? Their company targeted a casino inspector for disemployment.

Blogger Allan Davis April 22, 2016 9:31 AM  

#8 Zaklog - I actually went checking my monitor settings to see what I changed.

-=ad=-

OpenID basementhomebrewer April 22, 2016 9:36 AM  

@9 The joke is on the Casino. Wikipedia got them to fire an employee so that their customers could receive propaganda. That is a racket that not even the Soviets could pull off.

Anonymous BGKB April 22, 2016 9:47 AM  

The NSA spying wouldn't be so bad if they actually bothered to look for moslem jihadist as hard as they do teen sexting pics.

Agh! Lavender and purple? Did Big Gay Steve take over the layout here?

I am as surprised as you but I never meet Vox or Marku, but Milo has.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 22, 2016 9:52 AM  

Looks like the Soviets changed tactics.

Anonymous Emmanuel April 22, 2016 9:58 AM  

What's the status of wikipedia text ?

Is it freely forkable ?

Blogger Reallynewguy April 22, 2016 10:02 AM  

These people are a huge threat. Honestly, SJWS have convinced me there's no such thing as a nice progressive.

Anonymous Anonymous April 22, 2016 10:15 AM  

> What's the status of wikipedia text ?

I imagine that building a wiki shouldn't be that hard, hell… there are already plenty of OSS alternatives

Blogger Melampus the Seer April 22, 2016 10:24 AM  

Yes. You can fork it all. Providing a back link to the original Wkipedia article puts you in full license compliance. Edits are considered derivative works.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 22, 2016 10:27 AM  

Any social media alternatives will have to be held closely so they cannot be bought out. Probably outside the US would be best, to avoid a liability attack.

Blogger Robert What? April 22, 2016 10:37 AM  

Personally I never use Wikipedia except sometimes for the most mundane, noncontroversial, objective queries like how to compute the volume of a sphere or how far Mars is from the Earth. I always skip over the Wikipedia spam that Google serves up at the top of many search results. I'm surprised people still use Wikipedia. You'd think that even an SJW would want the actual facts on a subject when no one was looking over their shoulder.

Blogger The Sasquatch April 22, 2016 10:41 AM  

I gave up on Wikipedia years ago when I worked for a small university in Ohio. Wikipedia had the founding date for the school as 1940-something when it had been around since the early 1800s. I edited it and showed, as a reference, a page on the university's website showing significant, historical dates.

The update was deleted and I was banned ... They said that, as an employee of the university, I was attempting to market and/or sell something to Wikipedia's audience. The response included the line, "We don't like your kind around here."

It was the one and only time I attempted to edit something.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2016 10:50 AM  

Yet another of life's pervasive paradoxes: The existence of the World Wide Web (and all its sub-units) actually renders information of decreasing trustworthiness and instead of "uniting people," it's rapidly balkanizing every society.

Our great-great grandparents experienced a minuscule fraction of the information in which we marinate, but what they knew was mostly correct while the truthful fraction of what we are told dwindles to insignificance. Never have so many been exposed to so much yet known so little. The irreproducibility of published science is only part of our knowledge problem.

What happens when society is finally swept by the realization of such pervasive untrustworthiness? Or will we all separate into towers of belief, each fed by its "own set" of "facts" sifted from all those available to embrace only those that echo its dogmas?

This is what I expect. The various tribes geographically mixed now will first separate into towers of tightly-held, otherwise incompatible beliefs and then will come the wars needed to physically and politically separate the members of those towers.

Wikipedia will just continue to be the "Library" of the SJW/Leftist/Equalist-cult tower. I only hope that the towers that survive and thrive are those whose dogmas are most aligned with reality.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 22, 2016 10:54 AM  

Emmanuel:
What's the status of wikipedia text ?

Is it freely formable ?


Pretty much. Much is taken from public domain sources, much else is released under creative commons. Creative Commons (CC) does have a couple of gotchas however: People mistakenly conflate CC with public domain but that's not the case. CC is a license under which something has been released subject to its conditions. CC comes in different flavors and if one violates the terms of the license in play it terminates automatically, leaving the violator open to full copyright infringement action.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 22, 2016 10:54 AM  

@21 dc.sunsets

Yes, but if your prediction comes to pass, the problem is that the people in one of these "towers" will be primarily populated by people unable to build or sustain anything because they are simply not dealing with reality. Then they will demand the fruits of the work of the other "tower", and there will be further war.

Anonymous Neguy April 22, 2016 10:57 AM  

Any replacement (or better yet, actually innovative new) platforms need to be based on a distributed architecture, blockchain, etc. that makes it very difficult for a central organization or outside pressure to converge it.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2016 10:57 AM  

I have to laugh at human arrogance. Another observation: Never have so many people erroneously believed their gestalt was based on objectivity.

When no person knows (or can know) all the information necessary to make a simple #2 wood-and-graphite pencil, you have a never-ending stream of people willing to tell you with precision how to run an economy, structure a financial system, or describe what kinds of scientific inquiry are or should be forbidden.

The higher you go, the bigger the fool.

Anonymous DE-173/Code 19/Vox Nox April 22, 2016 11:07 AM  

"ludicrously well-funded profitless corporations."

There is no thing as a "non-profit". The correct term is not for INDIVIDUAL profit, but trust me, there's plenty of people not receiving dividends from stock, but handsomely profiting through highly compensated employment, the inherently poor accountability that devolves from the lack of stockholders and the error of the public that believes that people who work at tax exempts are somehow more noble and less acquisitive than others.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2016 11:08 AM  

@23 Zaklog, I absolutely agree, but aren't you describing the current situation? As South Africa runs its whites out of running the infrastructure we see that they can't even keep the lights on. It is astonishing to see Goodwhite Equality-Cultists and blacks gleefully predict a zero-whites future. They have no grasp whatsoever what happens when the high-IQ fraction of whites running every successful non-Asian country are kicked out, killed or bred out of existence. This also ignores what the Chinese and Japanese will do once there's no reason to avoid removing those pesky natives from the otherwise valuable landmass of Africa, for instance.

If only a few tens of thousands of the cream of people of mainly Northern European ancestry survive and form a homogeneous society willing to defend its members at all costs, a form of Western Civ can survive and eventually come back to dominance. If such people simply stop giving their assailants advanced tools, in no time it will be a contest between airborne drones, chem/bio weapons and battlefield robots vs forces armed with 20th century small arms and IED's.

At its height, Ancient Athens only had like 25,000 residents yet look what the seeds sown there produced.

Blogger Nate April 22, 2016 11:13 AM  

"Another observation: Never have so many people erroneously believed their gestalt was based on objectivity. "

What's the only saying? "its not what you don't know that is the problem. Its that so many things that you know are false."

Blogger VFM #7634 April 22, 2016 11:16 AM  

Wikipedia moderators are, I'd guess, close to 100% feminasties and gamma males. Sometimes they'll revert an (uncontroversial) edit I make and use some BS excuse (usually "original research"), and then I'll crap on their talk pages or whatever. I've had some of these moderators complaining at me about my "abusive behavior" and "demand[ing] respect!".

Haven't been blocked for several years though. Sasquatch's story is quite weird, sounds like he was dealing with a particularly heinous mod.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 11:34 AM  

I spend a lot of time at Wikipedia, which I find very useful for general information on a lot of subjects. However, I always keep in mind one principle: Just as with "Equality", there is no such thing as "Objectivity". Just as everybody is different, everybody has a point of view – and there will always be an opposing point of view.

Of course, I understand, your point of view is the correct one – even when it disagrees with the point of view of the Wikipedia editor who monitors the page on the subject of concern to you. Oddly enough, that editor also believes that his (or, I suppose, xers) point of view is the correct one. In the end there is no solution for this dilemma, other than the Chinese one:

According to Huffington Post as of June 2015, both encrypted and un-encrypted Chinese-language Wikipedia are blocked. Due to technological changes to the site’s encryption, the government cannot see which specific pages an individual is viewing. Therefore, Beijing is no longer able to filter out certain pages (such as Ai Weiwei or Tiananmen Square) as it did in the past years. As a result, Beijing chose to block the whole Chinese Wikipedia. ... Jimmy Wales met Lu Wei, the director of Cyberspace Administration of China on 17 December 2015 during the World Internet Conference held in Wuzhen, Zhejiang. Wales said that this is the first time they met, there is no consensus on specific issues, but "meet and know each other".

Good luck with that, Mr. Wales. The Tibetans can tell you how that goes: the Chinese can "exchange views" forever. With 3000 years of historical continuity (there have been upheavals, conquests, all kinds of changes, but since the Shang Dynasty, China has always been China) they take a very long view. (Not also: China is hardly alone. I'm sure there are plans afoot to do much the same here.)

In the early years of Wikipedia, there was constant conflict over articles about Tibet – a subject of interest to me, so I noticed – as the Chinese were indefatigable in their efforts to ensure that their version should be the "official" one. I haven't checked recently, but suppose that particular battlefield has quieted down now, since nobody in China can read it anyway – and the Chinese don't really care what anybody else thinks.

I am amused when people cite Wikipedia as if it were some infallible source – a habit, I guess, left over from when Encyclopædia Britannica was the Authority. But EB was really no more "objective" than Wikipedia – probably less so. If you need an Authority, you will find one. If you're looking for the truth, it's going to take some time and effort, and self-education to know what subjects are controversial enough that Wikipedia's presentation is likely to be slanted. In such cases, I read Wikipedia first, then search out alternatives to get as broad a picture as I can, before coming to my own conclusions.

Then, of course, I know that my view is the correct one. *Whew*

And of course, I'm sure there are many subjects covered in Wikipedia about which I don't know enough to know if or how much their presentation is biased. I just received an email from Tom Woods titled "A historical myth even I fell for". Always be ready to learn, is my policy.

Certainly it would be nice to see some alternatives to Wikipedia. What would be nicest to see would be open acknowledgement on the home page that "objectivity" is a unicorn, so while we do our best to approach that ideal, we understand there will always be bias – so go check out our competitors and think for yourself. Getting any significant number of people to do that would be the real revolution.

Anonymous Susan April 22, 2016 11:39 AM  

To those who are complaining about the purple, it is to note the passing of his fellow Minnesotan, the musician/rock star, Prince this past week.

Like him or not, he lived life on his terms. Have to respect that.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 22, 2016 11:45 AM  

@28 Nate, this is what makes me humble...and ridicule those who arrogantly demand I bow to their superior plan for the world in which I live. Let me be me, let them be them. But as we know all too well, this is now allowed.

SJW's and other assorted Cultists know deep down that they need the bright and productive, even if it enrages them that they will never be counted as such. The bright and productive are enslaved today, but the chains they wear are self-forged. The Cult's successes are nothing less than astonishing, getting the stonemasons and pyramid-builders to whip themselves even as they alone sweat to erect everyone's monuments.

Anonymous Steve April 22, 2016 11:48 AM  

I like the purple.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2016 11:49 AM  

As folks have said, it's not even limited to controversial or agenda driven topics - the dysfunctional loons who run the place can't even let basic stuff happen correctly.

No surprise when you think about it. These are people with bad interpersonal skills and poor self-control. They gravitate to something like Wikipedia because it lets them be two-bit big shots.

We need a reward model not based on making someone feel powerful.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2016 11:54 AM  

What's the only saying? "its not what you don't know that is the problem. Its that so many things that you know are false."

But showing them where they're wrong - or even just standing around while something like, say, gravity does the job - is hurtful to them.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2016 11:55 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:When no person knows (or can know) all the information necessary to make a simple #2 wood-and-graphite pencil,
Simply not true. I made a batch of pencils once, just to piss off a Libertarian. Now, granted, I had to buy the graphite, but it is a mined mineral, or I could have used charcoal powder.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 12:00 PM  

[Speaking of "editing" (?), my comment first appeared, then disappeared on a refresh. Ten minutes later, it's still gone. Why? Try again.]

I spend a lot of time at Wikipedia, which I find very useful for general information on a lot of subjects. However, I always keep in mind one principle: Just as with "Equality", there is no such thing as "Objectivity". Just as everybody is different, everybody has a point of view – and there will always be an opposing point of view.

Of course, I understand, your point of view is the correct one – even when it disagrees with the point of view of the Wikipedia editor who monitors the page on the subject of concern to you. Oddly enough, that editor also believes that his (or, I suppose, xers) point of view is the correct one. In the end there is no solution for this dilemma, other than the Chinese one:

According to Huffington Post as of June 2015, both encrypted and un-encrypted Chinese-language Wikipedia are blocked. Due to technological changes to the site’s encryption, the government cannot see which specific pages an individual is viewing. Therefore, Beijing is no longer able to filter out certain pages (such as Ai Weiwei or Tiananmen Square) as it did in the past years. As a result, Beijing chose to block the whole Chinese Wikipedia. ... Jimmy Wales met Lu Wei, the director of Cyberspace Administration of China on 17 December 2015.... Wales said that this is the first time they met, there is no consensus on specific issues, but "meet and know each other".

Good luck with that, Mr. Wales. The Tibetans can tell you how that goes: the Chinese can "exchange views" forever. With 3000 years of historical continuity, they take a very long view. (Note also: China is hardly alone. I'm sure there are plans afoot to do much the same here.)

In the early years of Wikipedia, there was constant conflict over articles about Tibet – a subject of interest to me, so I noticed – as the Chinese were indefatigable in their efforts to ensure that their version should be the "official" one. I haven't checked recently, but suppose that particular battlefield has quieted down now, since nobody in China can read it anyway – and the Chinese don't really care what anybody else thinks.

I am amused when people cite Wikipedia as if it were some infallible source – a habit, I guess, left over from when Encyclopædia Britannica was the Authority. But EB was really no more "objective" than Wikipedia – probably less so. If you need an Authority, you will find one. If you're looking for the truth, it's going to take some time and effort, and self-education to know what subjects are controversial enough that Wikipedia's presentation is likely to be slanted. In such cases, I read Wikipedia first, then search out alternatives to get as broad a picture as I can, before coming to my own conclusions.

Then, of course, I know that my view is the correct one. *Whew*

And of course, I'm sure there are many subjects covered in Wikipedia about which I don't know enough to know if or how much their presentation is biased. I just received an email from Tom Woods titled "A historical myth even I fell for". Always be ready to learn, I figure.

Certainly it would be nice to see some alternatives to Wikipedia. There's Conservapedia, of course; but I note it bills itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Okay... What would be nicest to see would be open acknowledgement on the home page that "objectivity" is a unicorn, so while we do our best to approach that ideal, we understand there will always be bias – so go check out our competitors and think for yourself. Getting any significant number of people to do that would be the real revolution.

Anonymous Eduardo April 22, 2016 12:03 PM  

Man who the heck makes pencils just to piss a lolbertarian?

So how you do them??? ;-)

I let me give my two cents: wikipedia is crap. There, that is all you need to know about wikipedia. The only thing that helps in wikipedia is technical data that you can check everywhere on the net, if you are not in that area you already start to have people wanting to give their view of things, kind of like pop science. Know what; it is kind of like any intellectual these days. Pretend to be smart, who cares that you have no idea what you are talking about!

Anonymous Quartermaster April 22, 2016 12:06 PM  

There is an article on Wiki about Jerry Pournelle's political spectrum from his doctoral dissertation. It's wrong, of course, so jerry edited it. It was changed back. He changed it again. It was changed back. He then edited it again and it was changed back in seconds.

If they can't allow the man who wrote what they wrote about in the article, to edit the entry for factual errors, then nothing they have in any article can be trusted.

I've gotten fundraising emails from them. I deleted them and blocked their email.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 22, 2016 12:07 PM  

Steve wrote:I like the purple.

I do too actually, but you can't not give a guy shit when he starts to explore the wrong side of the rainbow.

Anonymous Eduardo April 22, 2016 12:11 PM  

Well just give anthrax money to them!!!!

Better yet send them gay ass judge dredd... He is Justice, Social Justice!!!

Alright maybe Judge dredd may not be the best option, okay send to wikipedia Chuck Norris u_ú and let the wales go extinct!


Anonymous EH April 22, 2016 12:18 PM  

@19.:"Personally I never use Wikipedia except sometimes for the most mundane, noncontroversial, objective queries like how to compute the volume of a sphere or how far Mars is from the Earth"

You really can't trust anything on there. One of my early edits corrected the diameter of Pluto. Another corrected the albedo of Venus. A particular somewhat obscure area of higher math that I have studied for over a decade is completely incomprehensible -- almost all the primary source papers on ArXiv about it are much more easily understood than the WP article.

I had to fight to get a single paragraph into one article on a 18th c. jurist who had given his name to a rule listed in every edition of Black's Law Dictionary. The "owner" of the article said he didn't think it was notable. (Actually it was because the eponymous rule is quite unfair to men and in the interests of women.)

Never take any version of WP at face value. Read the talk page and poke around the edit history. Check the references, and find some more. Edit where the opposition is weak or nonexistent, or if there is opposition, make your edits small and spaced so there are a couple of other people's edits between each pair of yours.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 12:25 PM  

Speaking of "editing" (?), I posted a comment, which the blog accepted showed on the page, but then when the page was refreshed, it was gone. I tried again, same result. I opened the VP home page in another tab, noted that at the bottom of the topic it said 37 COMMENTS. I opened the topic, found it now said 36 COMMENTS at the beginning of the thread, but there were only 35 comments showing (none of them mine). Opened the VP home page in another tab, now it says 39 COMMENTS at the bottom of the topic; open the topic, it says 40 COMMENTS at the beginning of the thread, but only 39 are displayed. I still have the original tab open with my comment displayed as #36, right after Snidely Whiplash. The URL in that tab included the comment number, so I copied and pasted to open it in another browser. Once again, at the beginning of the comment thread it says 40 COMMENTS, but only 39 are shown, not including mine. And so on, 40 minutes later.

This has happened to me before, and I just gave up. But I've been seeing a lot of multiple posts recently, and can see why. What gives?

Anonymous Jack Amok April 22, 2016 12:34 PM  

A particular somewhat obscure area of higher math that I have studied for over a decade is completely incomprehensible -- almost all the primary source papers on ArXiv about it are much more easily understood than the WP article.

I ran into that phenomenon looking for information on formulas for an electrical circuit a while back. Wikipedia's entry looked like someone's doctoral thesis. It may or may not have been correct, but it was written in cant, not English.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 22, 2016 12:37 PM  

OT: Cuck Alert

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/21/my-wife-and-i-are-white-evangelicals-heres-why-we-chose-to-give-birth-to-black-triplets/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2016 12:55 PM  

Eduardo wrote:Man who the heck makes pencils just to piss a lolbertarian?

So how you do them??? ;-)

the 'lead' is powdered graphite mixed with a melted hard wax, like jewelers carving wax. The wood is a soft straight-grained wood.Canonically Port Orford cedar, but any straight-grained wood will do.
Split the wood 1/4" thick or so, then clamp the pieces together. Run a VERY long 1/32" drill big down the split in several places. It will follow the split nicely. Unclamp the wood, pack the groove with hot graphite/wax mixture on both sides. Glue it back together and bake it long enough to re-melt the wax. Split the sections apart, remove the excess wood. There's your pencil.
He had seen "I, Pencil" and was overly impressed, wouldn't shut up about comparative advantage and specialization of labor. I gave him Heinlein's line "Specialization is for insects" but he kept talking about the damn pencils.

Blogger ray April 22, 2016 1:02 PM  

"As I wrote in SJWAL, the near-complete convergence of social media is the reason that it is necessary for the alt-right to develop superior, broad-spectrum alternatives to everything from Twitter and Tumblr to Facebook and Wikipedia."


This is no joke and you have a BRIEF window. Use it or lose it.

Blogger ray April 22, 2016 1:11 PM  


"Like him or not, he lived life on his terms. Have to respect that."

No, I do not.

Anonymous tublecane April 22, 2016 1:44 PM  

@35-That's not really the point of the "I, Pencil" story. Maybe your libertarian acquaintance was confused. Of course it's possible to make your own pencil. You could build your own house if you wanted to.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2016 1:48 PM  

tublecane wrote:Maybe your libertarian acquaintance was confused.

Most libspergtarians are.

Anonymous tublecane April 22, 2016 1:58 PM  

How could anyone believe Wikipedia to have "accurate, neutral articles and privacy for contributors?" That's like buying into Fox News' "fair and balanced" tagline. Mere public relations. People don't go to Wikipedia because they can trust it; they go because it pops up first on Google.

I could guess the bent of the site about thirty seconds into reading a page. I successfully made an edit once, just to see if I could. But that was trivial: some kind of semantic problem on a page about the 14th amendment. There was a substantial edit I proposed on the Leopold and Loeb page, because it didn't say anything about them being homos. I didn't say anything about their relationship, rather pointing out that one of them was killed after allegedly propositioning a fellow inmate. Might not that scenario make more sense in the reader's mind with fuller information of the guy's sexual interests?

Blogger RobertT April 22, 2016 2:04 PM  

It strikes me that we're losing the battle. The puppies can't get the numbers to meet the challenge from the entrenched at the hugos. Twitter, Google, Facebook, Curt Schilling, wikipedia, etc. Even in a very conservative, right wing city, they are thinking about cancelling Schilling's contract to speak at the njcaa baseball championship dinner. All in defense of something that few years ago would have been completely unthinkable. What happened to morality.

Blogger VD April 22, 2016 2:09 PM  

It strikes me that we're losing the battle. The puppies can't get the numbers to meet the challenge from the entrenched at the hugos.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say at this blog. We have barely begun to START fighting back and you're whining and preaching despair.

You're absolutely wrong. We've been losing for 30 years. Now people are finally beginning to engage.

Anonymous Bz April 22, 2016 2:26 PM  

"I don't use Wikipedia often, but when I do, it's always ironically."

Anonymous Bz April 22, 2016 2:33 PM  

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from which anyone can be permabanned.

I suppose few read them, but it might be possible to point out errors in the associated talk pages. Like "the founding date of U. is ludicrously wrong" and "I don't want to be banned for correcting it". Though that sort of sassy right wing talk is likely a bannable offense too.

Blogger Melampus the Seer April 22, 2016 2:41 PM  

It strikes me that we're losing the battle.

Imagine a Marine platoon in fighting positions. Just as the enemy's attack reaches the culminating point, and it's time to counter-attack, exploit and exterminate - an embedded journalist says "It strike me that we're losing the battle."

Don't be that guy, you motherfucker.

Anonymous BGKB April 22, 2016 3:07 PM  

I do too actually, but you can't not give a guy shit when he starts to explore the wrong side of the rainbow.

Areoli you better stay away from Milo's tour, unless you dye your hair.

It strikes me that we're losing the battle.

There is no where left to retreat, or white flight to avoid conflict. That's why it seems the battle is only now starting in little girls bathrooms

Somewhat OT: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/a-victory-in-the-war-for-free-speech.php
TL:DR version: Harris wanted to use tax records to release the names of people who donated to conservative organizations so that the Democrats and their radical left allies could brownshirt them. The court said, nunh-unh, and issued an injunction barring them from doing so, finding that it’s still illegal (for now) for politicians to use state power to incite mobs against their political opponents.

Blogger OneWingedShark April 22, 2016 3:07 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:When no person knows (or can know) all the information necessary to make a simple #2 wood-and-graphite pencil

This 5 minute video does a fairly good job of alleviating that ignorance.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 3:39 PM  

I spend a lot of time at Wikipedia, which I find very useful for general information on a lot of subjects. However, I always keep in mind one principle: Just as with "Equality", there is no such thing as "Objectivity". Just as everybody is different, everybody has a point of view – and there will always be an opposing point of view.

Of course, I understand, your point of view is the correct one – even when it disagrees with the point of view of the Wikipedia editor who monitors the page on the subject of concern to you. Oddly enough, that editor also believes that his (or, I suppose, xers) point of view is the correct one. In the end there is no solution for this dilemma, other than the Chinese one:

According to Huffington Post as of June 2015, both encrypted and un-encrypted Chinese-language Wikipedia are blocked. Due to technological changes to the site’s encryption, the government cannot see which specific pages an individual is viewing. Therefore, Beijing is no longer able to filter out certain pages (such as Ai Weiwei or Tiananmen Square) as it did in the past years. As a result, Beijing chose to block the whole Chinese Wikipedia. ... Jimmy Wales met Lu Wei, the director of Cyberspace Administration of China on 17 December 2015.... Wales said that this is the first time they met, there is no consensus on specific issues, but "meet and know each other".

Good luck with that, Mr. Wales. The Tibetans can tell you how that goes: the Chinese can "exchange views" forever. With 3000 years of historical continuity, they take a very long view. (Note also: China is hardly alone. I'm sure there are plans afoot to do much the same here.)

In the early years of Wikipedia, there was constant conflict over articles about Tibet – a subject of interest to me, so I noticed – as the Chinese were indefatigable in their efforts to ensure that their version should be the "official" one. I haven't checked recently, but suppose that particular battlefield has quieted down now, since nobody in China can read it anyway – and the Chinese don't really care what anybody else thinks.

I am amused when people cite Wikipedia as if it were some infallible source – a habit, I guess, left over from when Encyclopædia Britannica was the Authority. But EB was really no more "objective" than Wikipedia – probably less so. If you need an Authority, you will find one. If you're looking for the truth, it's going to take some time and effort, and self-education to know what subjects are controversial enough that Wikipedia's presentation is likely to be slanted. In such cases, I read Wikipedia first, then search out alternatives to get as broad a picture as I can, before coming to my own conclusions.

Then, of course, I know that my view is the correct one. *Whew*

And of course, I'm sure there are many subjects covered in Wikipedia about which I don't know enough to know if or how much their presentation is biased. I just received an email from Tom Woods titled "A historical myth even I fell for". Always be ready to learn, I figure.

Certainly it would be nice to see some alternatives to Wikipedia. There's Conservapedia, of course; but I note it bills itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Okay... What would be nicest to see would be open acknowledgement on the home page that "objectivity" is a unicorn, so while we do our best to approach that ideal, we understand there will always be bias – so go check out our competitors and think for yourself. Getting any significant number of people to do that would be the real revolution.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 3:43 PM  

I spend a lot of time at Wikipedia, which I find very useful for general information on a lot of subjects. However, I always keep in mind one principle: Just as with "Equality", there is no such thing as "Objectivity". Just as everybody is different, everybody has a point of view – and there will always be an opposing point of view.

Of course, I understand, your point of view is the correct one – even when it disagrees with the point of view of the Wikipedia editor who monitors the page on the subject of concern to you. Oddly enough, that editor also believes that his (or, I suppose, xers) point of view is the correct one. In the end there is no solution for this dilemma, other than the Chinese one:

According to Huffington Post as of June 2015, both encrypted and un-encrypted Chinese-language Wikipedia are blocked. Due to technological changes to the site’s encryption, the government cannot see which specific pages an individual is viewing. Therefore, Beijing is no longer able to filter out certain pages (such as Ai Weiwei or Tiananmen Square) as it did in the past years. As a result, Beijing chose to block the whole Chinese Wikipedia.

I am amused when people cite Wikipedia as if it were some infallible source – a habit, I guess, left over from when Encyclopædia Britannica was the Authority. But EB was really no more "objective" than Wikipedia – probably less so. If you need an Authority, you will find one. If you're looking for the truth, it's going to take some time and effort, and self-education to know what subjects are controversial enough that Wikipedia's presentation is likely to be slanted. In such cases, I read Wikipedia first, then search out alternatives to get as broad a picture as I can, before coming to my own conclusions.

Then, of course, I know that my view is the correct one. *Whew*

And of course, I'm sure there are many subjects covered in Wikipedia about which I don't know enough to know if or how much their presentation is biased. I just received an email from Tom Woods titled "A historical myth even I fell for". Always be ready to learn, I figure.

Certainly it would be nice to see some alternatives to Wikipedia. There's Conservapedia, of course; but I note it bills itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Okay... What would be nicest to see would be open acknowledgement on the home page that "objectivity" is a unicorn, so while we do our best to approach that ideal, we understand there will always be bias – so go check out our competitors and think for yourself. Getting any significant number of people to do that would be the real revolution.

Blogger Timothy MEEHAN April 22, 2016 3:48 PM  

@19 I never learned imperial properly because my textbooks were metric and the teachers weren't, so today I learned putting "12.4 kg in pounds" into Google will save me a trip to Biaspedia.

Blogger Timothy MEEHAN April 22, 2016 3:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Timothy MEEHAN April 22, 2016 4:00 PM  

@29 It occurred to me last night that SJWs are Homer Simpson in E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt), glove-slapping their way through life on the lowest difficulty setting.

We are the colonels.

Anonymous Greg April 22, 2016 4:57 PM  

As an admin on Wikipedia, I should point out that IP bans are almost always (99.99% of the time) temporary. When it comes to usernames, permanent bans are much more common (I perma-banned ~400 accounts in one day for blatant vandalism). In terms of agenda-pushing: there's a lot of it. People looking on Wikipedia for agenda discussions aren't going to find anything - Wikipedia admins prefer IRC. At this point the only thing that will save the project is to split it off and pay very close attention to who edits.

Anonymous Philalethes April 22, 2016 5:59 PM  

Apologies for the double post. Numerous tries earlier today, the comment appeared, then disappeared. Tried again this afternoon, same result. Tried again with some content deleted, the comment remained – though it hadn't been over the 4096 character limit before (or it wouldn't have appeared it all). An hour or so later, now I see both showing up. If somebody could remove one, that'd be fine.

I've seen a lot of similar double posts recently (and it's happened to me before also); something's wrong with Blogger's comment system.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 22, 2016 6:17 PM  

RobertT:
It strikes me that we're losing the battle. The puppies can't get the numbers to meet the challenge from the entrenched at the hugos. Twitter, Google, Facebook, Curt Schilling, wikipedia, etc. Even in a very conservative, right wing city, they are thinking about cancelling Schilling's contract to speak at the njcaa baseball championship dinner. All in defense of something that few years ago would have been completely unthinkable. What happened to morality.

I think what you're seeing could be apogee of the wave for 'peak SJW'. As Vox noted, for 30 (actually the number is more like 70-80) years, there has been zero resistance of any kind to the massive convergence of institution after institution. The Boy Scouts won a major Supreme Court victory in the late 80s or 90s affirming their right of free association but the entryists got in and now we just as well call them the Pedo-Bear Farm Club of Repuke Central.

The Military, police, churches (Prot, Catholic and Orthodox) have been thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by SJWs. Hell, the Wickard decision from ca.1940 - which holds that the government can forbid you from growing food to feed yourself on land you own (because 'interstate commerce') still stands, not to mention Kelo and any number of egregious violations. Even so, for the first time in my memory (which is at least as long as Vox's) I see signs of actual red-pilling. It's in the beginning stages to be sure. Were it for the very high likelihood that Anders Breivik was an operative or either Mossad or the CIA (or both), he would indeed be a hero - an outlier of something to come. Time will tell, as they say.

Wikipedia is pretty massive - especially when you factor in Wikimedia, Wikidata, etc. Even so, much of it could be forked and improved upon. The key - as I think Vox noted sometime ago - is curation. Let a bunch of idiots edit something and it will end up as a massive stinking pile of you-know-what. As long as large numbers or morons continue to believe in the fairy-tales taught in public edumacayshun and repeated daily by Lügenpresse, Llord Bankfein and his gang will continue to manufacture money from thin air which will be used to buy off whatever - and whomever - they like, especially the badge-gang from the Marines to the local gendarmerie. Only when enough realize that it's all a lie will the source of their power begin to falter.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 22, 2016 6:29 PM  

Philalethes wrote:something's wrong with Blogger's comment system.

This news comes as a shock.

Blogger VD April 22, 2016 7:07 PM  

As an admin on Wikipedia, I should point out that IP bans are almost always (99.99% of the time) temporary.

Greg, shoot me an email when you get a chance. I have some questions for you, if you don't mind.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 22, 2016 9:25 PM  

@31

To those who are complaining about the purple, it is to note the passing of his fellow Minnesotan, the musician/rock star, Prince this past week.

Fair enough and it makes sense. I wasn't so much complaining as confused.

Blogger tublecane April 23, 2016 12:34 AM  

@66-I never knew where the 30 number came from, except that maybe that's when the New Left's Long March through the institutions was completed, and they started the PC era proper. But that was long after the Diversity Machine revved up. McCarthy was fighting the same enemy, who reaches back into the previous century. I don't want to go that far, but the Frankfurt School is the intellectual father of PCism, I think we can agree. When did it launch? The 20s?

Blogger tublecane April 23, 2016 12:36 AM  

@66-I never knew where the 30 number came from, except that maybe that's when the New Left's Long March through the institutions was completed, and they started the PC era proper. But that was long after the Diversity Machine revved up. McCarthy was fighting the same enemy, who reaches back into the previous century. I don't want to go that far, but the Frankfurt School is the intellectual father of PCism, I think we can agree. When did it launch? The 20s?

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 23, 2016 12:36 AM  

@43 If you're using NoScript or have the "disable Javascript" add-on, kill JS on the page and reload to see if your comment is actually gone or just hidden by the spam-hider.

Anonymous aeou April 23, 2016 9:15 AM  

Snidely, you didn't mine and smelt the ore for the drill bit and clamps. Among other things. Do it right if you're gonna mouth off. You have to do everything yourself including the tools to make the tools. Otherwise you just show you don't understand the point of the pencil parable.

Anonymous mature craig April 23, 2016 12:20 PM  

Aside from the prefix wiki another thing I didn't like about it was a bunch of times when I looked up various figures and facts about history they would date things with CE instead of AD. I felt it reflected an antichristian bias that I don't like

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts