WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 17
New Yesterday: 25

Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> General Autism Discussion     
tortoise
Raven
Raven


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tortoise
Raven
Raven


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mechanima
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Posts: 591

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tortoise doth protest too much, methinks. Very Happy

(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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus


Joined: Sep 07, 2007
Posts: 362

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:19 am    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor


Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:57 am    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tortoise
Raven
Raven


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

[quote="Fedaykin"]
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 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor


Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mechanima
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Posts: 591

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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... Very Happy

M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tortoise
Raven
Raven


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fedaykin
Velociraptor
Velociraptor


Joined: May 22, 2007
Posts: 405
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geek
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 723
Location: Elsewhere

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I liked the 2004 version best. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mechanima
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Posts: 591

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geek wrote:
I liked the 2004 version best. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=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. Smile

M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tortoise
Raven
Raven


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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... Very Happy

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juliekitty
Running dog
Phoenix


Joined: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 1759

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oy vey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mechanima
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Nov 09, 2005
Posts: 591

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:36 am    Post subject: Re: Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment) Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> General Autism Discussion   
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art