User:Stanistani

Wikipedia's inability to improve its own governance is appalling.

Origin Story
I joined Wikipedia as an editor in 2006. My usual edits included reverting vandalism, light copy editing, looking for BLP problems, and expressing an interest in Wikipedia governance.

In 2011 I became embroiled in a controversy (Campaign for "santorum" neologism) where some notable users used Wikipedia as a political attack engine. The consensus of most of the Wiki-warriors was: ''Go for it! We don't like this guy anyway, so let's Wiki-bomb him, and help Dan Savage define him as something horribly offensive!''

At the end Jimbo Wales intervened: "My only thought about the whole thing is that WP:COATRACK applies in spades. There is zero reason for this page to exist. It is arguable whether this nonsense even belongs in his biography at all, but at a bare minimum, a merger to his main article seems appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)"

What does it say about Wikipedia that its management gleefully ignored its own principles until the founder chimed in with advice? It says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia managed by people who care more about social niceties and minutiae than presenting 'the sum of human knowledge.'

That's not what we're supposed to be here for. We should try to do better.

Wikipediocracy
I've decided that everybody thinks they know what Wikipediocracy is about so... Just Google it!

Now I'm off to further explore what the hell 'UwU' is. &rarr; StaniStani 02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

SHA-512 Hash: ac2c2f67800fcdab7eb44e1b5aa0db650a7aa60076306cabd24e1ed9d10c3ca720e22ecc901b2a2289f8d9c165ea453486ff7d957fcca8e0ac14b36cbebe639b