User:Z80Spectrum

In Short
I am (or I was) a registered Wikipedia editor for about three months. What went wrong in those three months? Well, everything. Everything went wrong.

Links to Similar Pages
I have stumbled upon a few user pages and articles similar to this one while editing Wikipedia. Here is a list, so far:
 * Short Essay: "A cumulatively dysfunctional system" (permalink 2024/03)  (2007)
 * Essay: "Wikipedia is failing" (permalink 2024/03)
 * User page: "Wikipedia is broken and failing" (permalink 2024/03)  (~2009)
 * Talk page section: "Your opinion is requested" (permalink 2024/03)  (2024) (alleges possible "compromise" of the system)
 * User page: Elliott-AtomicInfinity

Real-Time (2024/04/01):


 * Talk page section: Persistently teaching grandmother to suck eggs

My WP:ANI case
I would like to mention this discussion at WP:ANI (permalink 2024/03) titled "Deletions of (article) talk page material", just in case that I'm "indef blocked" and, therefore, unable to further edit this page. Currently, the score is 7:0 for the team in my opposition, so I'm losing big time. So, how will it turn out? I'm quite curious to find out the final result. Hopefully, that score doesn't necessarily count, because WP:CONS policy in the WP:DETCON section says: The problem with that statement is that it is just a statement claimed by Wikipedia about itself, where Wikipedia customarily claims all kinds of falsehoods and total nonsense. In this case, Wikipedia claims that it is ruled by some kind of a "consensus", but also that it is ruled by arguments, therefore rational and fair.

At WP:ANI, I have accidentally set up a little experiment: the outcome of the WP:ANI case will experimentally determine whether Wikipedia is actually ruled by policies, principles and arguments, or is it ruled by a thinly veiled socio-political compromise based on vote counting of a loud and persistent minority.

Why would Wikipedia claim all the nonsense about itself? Well, it is just marketing (more precisely: propaganda). In order for Wikipedia to attract new volunteers, it has to claim it is fair, friendly, kind, truth-loving and all other fabulous attributes. All those are claims about itself. When someone/something claims something about himself/itself, it is usually just empty bragging.

It is not easy to tell, at first glance, how deep is the deception created by the system called Wikipedia. What Wikipeda is in reality can only be determined by experiments and detailed examination. Are all of the Wikipedia's policies and principles just a dead letter on the paper, are they all just a thin layer of paint designed to attract unsuspecting newcomers? Are all those fabulous principles applied in practice or are they easily and commonly misinterpreted? Only an experiment can tell.

At this point in time, I'm pretty certain that the system called Wikipedia in reality is not much more than a complex and addictive socio-political game. The byproduct of the game is an "encyclopedia" of a perpetually low quality and exceptionally huge breadth. Fortunately, I have played too many games in my life to easily succumb to gaming addiction. And, I still don't know how the game plays out.

As an information-providing website, Wikipedia is much more similar to a modern variant of a newspaper, than to an encyclopedia. If it is some kind of encyclopedia, then it is so only for the people successfully deceived.

I like to play games.

Illustrated Overview of Wikipedia
Unpleasant truth in a cool and funny way:

Wikipedia is a Big Lie
When I say Wikipedia is a big lie, I'm not joking. I'm not exaggerating. I can provide evidence, and I will provide evidence in support of my claims.

Wikipedia is a clever lie. It claims to be an encyclopedia. It claims to be truth-loving. It claims to be fair. It claims to have a set of sensible rules. None of that is true. The claims form a fallacy known as Ipse dixit, "he said it himself". Without evidence, the claims made by Wikipedia about itself are void, and should not be blindly accepted

Wikipedia lulls you in. "Anyone can edit", claims Wikipedia. It claims to be friendly. It claims to be polite. It claims to be kind. Behind inviting friendliness hides the world's greatest trickster. Behind the mask of politeness lies a deceptive beast. Behind kind words hides The Monster.

Wikipedia has a great community. Wikipedia is open. It is written by volunteers. Decisions are made by consensus. How can it be better than this?

Surprisingly, the community has nothing to do with the content. It is a surprising fact, discovered and explained in the field of journalism by Noam Chomsky. The content has little to do with honesty of the people who are writing the content. This is because the newspaper owners are the ones who select (i.e. hire) journalists and editors. The owners of newspapers retain the real control, by hiring only those editors who will hire only those journalists who have certain natural biases desired by owners. The journalists themselves are completely unaware of this kind of a scam, as most people are unaware of their own biases.

This is the exact reason why there are many other online encyclopedias (list), including Citizendium, Conservapedia, Scholarpedia, and RationalWiki. which look strikingly like Wikipedia, while the content is very different. So, how does the difference arise? The differences are the consequence of the people who exercise true power in the project.

Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. The consensus is arrived by the most widespread consensus reached

But how can a consensus be reached? With so many people having so many different opinions, it is impossible to get everyone to agree.

Consensus favors the status quo. But, who is the author of the first status, the first set of rules and principles? And who are the people creating the current rule set by reinterpreting the ostensibly stable rule set imposed by the status quo?

(Writing in progresss...)

Consensus is a Scam
The consensus doesn't exist.

When "consensus" is about Wikipedia content, then it is reached by the victory of the most powefull party in the conflict. That party might have more adherents on Wikipedia, or more spare time. Simply explained, it is a battle of resources. The party with more resources on Wikipedia wins the content conflicts. Such a procedure together with the consequences is known as "Wikipedia consensus".

(Writing in progresss...)

The DRN case
The DRN case is : Talk:ZX Spectrum_graphic_modes, filed on 10 January 2024. While this DRN case was in progress, I made a complaint at WP:ANI about a conduct issue of the other party in the DRN case. The mentioned conduct issue was initially noticed by the moderator of the DRN case. The DRN rules state that it is not a venue for conduct issues; WP:ANI is the venue for conduct issues. When my complaint was made, according to the rules, the DRN case should have been closed, and the case at WP:ANI should have been opened. Instead, a procedural mistake happened at WP:ANI, which caused the WP:ANI case to be closed and the case at DRN to be continued. I immediately objected at DRN. However, the moderator then defended the procedural mistake with the words: Since DRN is not well equipped to handle conduct issues, such a series of events was discriminating towards me. No one has ever apologized to me, or in any way criticized either the actions of the moderator, or the procedural mistake. Two months later, the real fun starts. I made a new complaint to WP:ANI (permalink 2024/03), strongly related to the the DRN case. Almost immediately, the moderator of the DRN case felt it appropriate to join the WP:ANI discussion, clearly on the side against me. Isn't he supposed to act neutrally? What kind of a moderator does that, is there any person who would consider such actions as neutral and fair? Of course, everyone just turned the blind eye on the whole debacle, pretending like it never happened.

The very same moderator instead thinks it was appropriate, in that last WP:ANI discussion, to place a "Support a Site Ban" against me. I don't know what else to say, I am speechless. Blows my mind.

Other mentions, to-dos, etc.
Issue with MOS:BINPREFIX : The short MOS discussion on BINPREFIX (quickly collapsed). Notice the briliant and widely held opinion "The world is changing slowly".

The last archive of BINPREFIX. The industry hasn't accepted the KiB / MiB / GiB units yet, so neither should Wikipedia. Yeah, right. Spot on. Has the industry accepted high tax rates on profit yet? Maybe Wikipedia should neither.

To do: Last (hidden) discussion on BINPREFIX

To do: Spectre (article) This laughable page full of inaccuracies, incorrect and misleading information, written in journalistic style and by journalistic methods is going to make a fine ammunition for my essay.

Note, 2024/03/28: I just stumbled upon a user named "Elliott-AtomicInfinity", who, on his talk page (User:Elliott-AtomicInfinity), expresses many opinions similar to mine. What a coincidence!

ROTFL
(from List of hoaxes on Wikipedia)
 * Thomas Forbes
 * (archive.org): HSTR LAN
 * (archive.org): Morris–Putnam point

My links
These are links that I have saved for my own use:


 * 1) |ZX Spectrum parrot image quality and Copyright issue on Wikimedia
 * 2) |diff of the removed parts of 4throck's user page, including the copyright issue
 * 3) |copyright issue of color gradients, and the source image
 * 4) |my new parrot image
 * 5) |parrot in 8 colors, error-diffusion dithering

Status
Bored.