User:Ondertitel

I add content and try to reference what others have added. I work mostly on warez related articles. Referencing those articles is hard. Much has been written about some of the elements of the dark side, mostly in the form of Wikipedia articles; blogs; and articles in trade journals, magazines and newspapers. However, there is a paucity of scholarly work that brings them together.

Doing this I find errors in sources Wikipedia considers excellent ((peer-reviewed) papers, books, ...), while otherwise excellent primary or "self-published" sources can be a red flag for extremist deletionists (those that you only see talking/reverting instead of helping to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM or going towards the WP:AIM of the project by adding content), even though the exact same sources are used by the former category ... For uncontroversial parts, one has to adapt to the topic. In time it will be replaced by better sources that are harder to find or read. One must not limit themselves to English literature only. Many good sources are in German for the warez topics. Already plenty of sources are added to page references, but they are still barely used for citing more than the one sentence.

For the warez scene, Wikipedia is unique in how it brings various notable topics together of this underground culture. I started editing with the single purpose of WP:PRESERVEing what others already added. My approach is based on sourcing, like a literature review, because I know editors tend to piss off new contributors and domain experts that are needed the most. I can speak from experience by getting banned after encountering a rule juggler. (challenging/deleting stuff, while there is a picture illustrating the sentence (!), after I added a reference not deemed good enough, while much later I encountered that source in an academic paper) Most would've totally given up before even getting started/banned! Not for me because it was the reason I started editing in the first place albeit slowly. English is not my mother tongue. It matters:. About editor gangs: https://archive.vn/YnJnD

Exhaustive list of Wikipedians I've encountered that understand the shithead problem: Shaddim, Brews ohare.

A good read to understand why it became this way: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

See also: Brandolini's law. Encounters: 

Good sources with errors: (pointing out factual errors in academic papers) Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. --Richard P. Feynman An outside look on Wikipedia by Helen Buynisk: Wikipedia: Rotten to the Core
 * "die bereits seit über einem Jahrzehnt bestehen" Neither Class or Myth were active for more than a decade.

The Fundamental Law of Administrative Workings [F.L.A.W.]: The real world is what is reported to the system, in other words, the system has a severely censored and distorted view of reality from biased and filtering sensory organs. This distorted view displaces understanding of the actual real-world, which in turn pales and tends to disappear. This displacement creates a type of sensory deprivation and a kind of hallucinogenic effect on those inside the systems, causing them to lose common sense. In addition to negatively affecting those inside the system, the system attracts to it people who are optimized for the pathological environment the system creates. Thus, systems attract systems-people.

Ideas for Wikipedia
Some of the best Encyclopædia Britannica articles have been formally revised less than a dozen times, and so those esteemed author/editors would appear, to us, as near useless (with edit counts of near zero). We need, in my opinion, as much of that—small number, high quality, long-in-substance, scholarly edits—as anything else. The notion that large numbers of small edits is a hallmark of quality editing is so much nonsense. --
 * Require decent edit summaries from anonymous editors to combat vandalism. i.e. nothing auto generated or empty
 * No edit counts anywhere, only contribution counts. i.e. count +500 char edits only

Wikipedia radicalism and zealotry

 * Resolution of images reduced so much it becomes impossible to discern what's on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Wave

I'm looking for the actual texts of these references
I'll make a list. #ICanHazPDF Libgen Sci-Hub Z-Library Anna's Archive

Papers

 * Anything new I don't know about or newly published papers.

Books

 * In dnl format: https://web.archive.org/web/20071012210153/https://sharewareebooks.com/eBooks/Computer/DivX_6_R.T.F.M.
 * Previous book: https://zulu-ebooks.com/fachbuecher/divx-rtfm
 * Found: https://archive.org/details/understandingonl0000fisk
 * Found: https://archive.org/details/darknethollywood00lasi
 * Found: https://archive.org/details/darknethollywood00lasi

Interesting links

 * http://tech-insider.org/software-piracy/

Tools

 * DOI Citation Formatter - Select wikipedia-templates
 * DOI Wikipedia reference generator (down)
 * Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books
 * BibTeX to Wikipedia - http://jstools.ucoz.net/bibtex2wiki (broken)

References to use/add to specific articles
Here I will list references that will add value to certain articles or aren't used at all yet. Feel free to add or start working on this list.
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/scene-stealer-the-axxo-files-1214699.html
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_(warez)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_(warez)


 * https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Avariety.com+warez