Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment)



Page 4 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page:

tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 118

Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:53 am

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Turtoise, you're the one who's doing the bashing:

Quote:
This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


Concerns about the article were raised in it's talk page, not just here, there's no need to claim this whole thing is all 'bashing SG'.

Btw, SG hasn't edited the page for a few days.


It's okay to raise concerns. It's not okay to twist figures as the basis of a false accusation that demeans others. That is called libel...or more simply bashing.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 118

Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:31 am

mechanima wrote:
Yes, because all you seem to be doing thus far, is to manipulate facts, something Aspies tend to place little value upon whoever does it.


The irony of this statement is rich indeed!


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 591

Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:49 am

The Tortoise doth protest too much, methinks. :D

(I'm actually quite intrigued to ponder what new rationales he will come up with to try and claim that editing Wikipedia for up to even 9.5 hours a day, not counting research and backchannel emails, is in some kind of "normal behavior" range we refuse to understand, because we are Aspies!)

Anyway, let's not get sidetracked into making this "all about SG" she is probably the main catalyst, but there is another editor Eubulides, who seems dedicated to playing both sides off against the center (Agenda driven? For the heck of it? Who knows?) too.

M



Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 362

Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:19 am

tortoise wrote:
Fedaykin wrote:
Look at her very own page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SandyGeorgia - 21'000 edits up to 3rd of February 2007, 40'000 at 23rd of August. That's an average of 95 / day.


Using her own page it states: "one year on Wiki; 21,000 edits". Divide by 365 and you get 57.5 edits per day.



Now you are trying to misrepresent the situation by selective use of data. The page also lists 40.000 edits in the past 19-20 months (februari was her anniversary). That's about 2000 per month, or almost 70 edits per day. Looking at the data since februari it's 19000 edits in 7 months, or roughly 90 per day.

Why did you focus on that first piece of data?


Personally I don't believe there is any ground to accuse SG of anything large. Sure, 70 edits per day is a lot, but there's no telling how muh time she invests per day, the time between a checkout and a commit does not necessarily equal the time one has worked on a modification.



Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:57 am

tortoise wrote:
Using her own page it states: "one year on Wiki; 21,000 edits". Divide by 365 and you get 57.5 edits per day.

Oh dear.. You say you're a Wikipedia editor? And this is your reading comprehension? I guess I should spell it out for you:

The 23rd of August 2007 is 6 months and 20 days after the 3rd of February 2007, or roughly 200 days. 40-21'000 is 19'000. 19'000/200 = 95. Hence, during this period she's done roughly 100 edits / day. She seems to have increased her pace since the start.

Quote:
All I have simply done is question the assumptions of this thread. As more information is given to me the figures become more exact but in all cases the originally figures given are false.


Is this you intentionally being offensive or does your mind work this way? You're lying here, the original information was all correct.

Quote:
Get a grip folks, the correct thing to do in this case is simply to admit the error and move on.


Pot meets the kettle I believe.

Btw, what's your Wiki account?



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 118

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:13 am

Fedaykin wrote:
tortoise wrote:
Is this you intentionally being offensive or does your mind work this way? You're lying here, the original information was all correct.


There is a rudeness here which is offensive and it doesn't come from just you. Please stop. Make your point through the logical expression of words. That is something that I can respect.

Okay going back to when she first joined and counting all the days...I get 87 edits per day. That is without a calculator so don't call me names if it is slightly off.

Here is what was posted on the board: 100 edits per day, taking 14 hours, 7 days a week..which obviously means she is paid by the pharma companies. The first figure is off but close enough. By no means has the second figure been demonstrated to be accurate to any degree, it is all based on assumption. Again, while looking at her recent posts I most often see 3 to 5 hour blocks of editing. I spend 3 to 5 hours on the computer for leisure daily. Does that make me a pharma employee? Less then 1/2 of her edits are about ASD further weakening this position. The conclusion that this person MUST be a pharma employee is totally unjustified.

But,...if you don't believe me, simply invite her to comment on this board. I'd love to hear what she has to say.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


Last edited by tortoise on Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:31 am

tortoise wrote:
The conclusion that this person MUST be a pharma employee is totally unjustified.


I can conclude now that you're a complete twit. You keep pretending people have written stuff they haven't for the sake of argument. I would like an answer to the question though.. Is the problem in your perception of reality or in your behaviour?



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 591

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:37 am

Well I don't think she is in the pay of "Big Pill" either, but Fedaykin's calculation of the truly dysfunctional amount of time she spends on Wikipedia look fine and fair to me.

tortoise wrote:
But,...if you don't believe me, simply invite her to comment on this board. I'd love to hear what she has to say.


Me too, believe me, me too... :D

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 118

Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:02 pm

Fedaykin wrote:
tortoise wrote:
The conclusion that this person MUST be a pharma employee is totally unjustified.


I can conclude now that you're a complete twit. You keep pretending people have written stuff they haven't for the sake of argument. I would like an answer to the question though.. Is the problem in your perception of reality or in your behaviour?


You have been reported to admin. I'd suggest that you desist immediatly in your behaviour.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:19 pm

tortoise wrote:

You have been reported to admin. I'd suggest that you desist immediatly in your behaviour.


Just leave this place already, you're merely a nuisance.. No one that reads this thread can come to any other conclusion than that you're a twit.



geek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 723
Location: Elsewhere

Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:07 pm

I liked the 2004 version best. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... id=4200633

It's a pity the way wikipedia has changed their policies since then. They prevent a lot of problems, but do away with much good at the same time. Before, someone would write a great article, and they'd add references if someone challenged its accuracy. Now they don't write great articles, they cobble together bits and pieces from medical literature. The hundred citations would be handy for looking things up, but how many will see them when it requires reading so many pages of tedious dreck?



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 591

Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:34 pm

geek wrote:
I liked the 2004 version best. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... id=4200633

It's a pity the way wikipedia has changed their policies since then. They prevent a lot of problems, but do away with much good at the same time. Before, someone would write a great article, and they'd add references if someone challenged its accuracy. Now they don't write great articles, they cobble together bits and pieces from medical literature. The hundred citations would be handy for looking things up, but how many will see them when it requires reading so many pages of tedious dreck?


To an extent you CAN still write a great article and add in citations (and, let's face it, in a medical area, if you can't cite sources it probably isn't such a great article after all?). You can also have a wonderful stimulating time composing and evolving a great article as a team with other editors you may have no other contact with.

When that happens editing is a pleasure.

The problem starts when somebody exploits Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines to their own ends (whatever they may be).

Which is what happened here. You have one editor imposing sole control over content by demanding that everyone else work to rule, that every single word anyone else puts into the article be sourced to the point of the ridiculous, and then querying the sources provided, as well as constant arbitrary queries of the text. You could do the same to her, of course, but apart from it being (and LOOKING LIKE) just a childish kind of "tit for tat" you would have to have MORE time than she does to be able to challenge her edits the way she challenges everybody elses, defend you own edits, AND begin the dispute resolution process. She constantly contradicts herself (including her own challenges to others), most of her edits are just lightly shuffled plagiarisations from sources BUT, to keep up with and stop her you would need to put in a 120 hour week, and hey, we may be Aspies, but even if we don't have lives AS SUCH we do have special interests. :)

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 118

Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:38 pm

mechanima wrote:
Well I don't think she is in the pay of "Big Pill" either, but Fedaykin's calculation of the truly dysfunctional amount of time she spends on Wikipedia look fine and fair to me.

tortoise wrote:
But,...if you don't believe me, simply invite her to comment on this board. I'd love to hear what she has to say.


Me too, believe me, me too... :D

M


I'm glad that someone with intelligence didn't jump to the extraordinary conclusion that SG HAD to work for big pharma. But I agree with you. She does spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. To define this as dysfunctional you would have to show that her editing impairs her life. If she were single and lets say on disability...what is wrong with spending a third, half, or whole part of the working day on Wikipedia? After all,...lest we forget: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is considered one of the "unalienable rights" of man.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


juliekitty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 1759

Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:01 pm

oy vey



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 591

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:36 am

Ah, my favorite!

tortoise wrote:
I'm glad that someone with intelligence didn't jump to the extraordinary conclusion that SG HAD to work for big pharma. But I agree with you. She does spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. To define this as dysfunctional you would have to show that her editing impairs her life. If she were single and lets say on disability...what is wrong with spending a third, half, or whole part of the working day on Wikipedia? After all,...lest we forget: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is considered one of the "unalienable rights" of man.


Red herring for brekfast...

Before I carve this wonderful fish, let me draw your attention to the fact that Ted Bundy could have claimed an "inalienable right" to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but I don't think it would have got him very far? I could be wrong.

In a 2007 study "Excessive Internet Use: The Role of Personality, Loneliness and Social Support Networks in Internet Addiction" Elizabeth Hardie, after using standard diagnostic tests to establish degree of pathology in her subjects, found that average internet user put in an average of 21.84 hours per week each, over users put in 35.70 hours per week, and internet addicts put in an average of 68.88 hours per week.

However, as I said, this is a red herring, because all that is relevant here is the use to which that excessive time online has been put in terms of becoming a "law unto herself" through sheer force of hours, imposing undue control upon her fellow editors and the Wikipedia Asperger syndrome article.

M



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 4 of 4 [ 60 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page:




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: