The world's greatest online comedy has returned for an encore performance. This week, the Wikipedia supreme court saw fit to retract certain admin privileges from one of the site's most recognizable figures, UK press officer David Gerard, accusing him of disseminating private user data and "failing to maintain proper decorum in …
And there was me thinking furries were the most dramatic creatures to lurk on the interwebs.
Information is indestructible
But I could go to Wikipedia and edit this whole story back into a relevant article, and cite El Reg as a source, right? Would that have to be Oversighted  too? And what then of the Wikifury?
So sad. First time I've ever felt the need to use the FAIL icon.
 What a horribly ominous and dystopian euphemism that is, to be sure.
you have a horribly twisted definition of the word 'entertainment'.
it seems the Wikifiddlers have even managed to kill what limited entertainment there was in their drama. Here's my three-step plan to enjoying it all in the comfort of your own home:
1: Get PHP, mySQL and Mediawiki running on your computer. Difficulty level: minimal
2: Steal all the graphics off Wikipedia and skin your new wiki thusly. Difficulty level: laughable
3: Copy'n'paste Wikipedia articles into your wiki, then create multiple users to argue, debate, sock, ArbCom, wail, edit, revert, block, vandalise, vandalise, then vandalise them again. Difficulty level: negligible
Alternatively, skip steps 1 and 2 and just do all of 3 on Wikipedia itself
Who gives a sh1t!!
I was going to use the Paris icon and make some wise-ass crack about inner circles and ejections but i really can't be ar$ed.
I've never understood why the Register devotes so much energy to every particle of trivia to drop from Wikipedia. Nobody cares.
Why the vendetta? Did somebody at Wikipedia insult one of your editors? I'd like to know, seriously.
And yet you feel the need to comment...
It's a good verb,
Bing would be better.
"Let's bing this one out of existence!"
So who's going to be the first to invoke "Godwin's" Law?
Change in leadership
I think it's past time for some new people to take over who are less ideological and more concerned with the quality and especially integrity of the site. They should also be held as accountable as the leaders of any organization, and not be allowed to hide behind anonymous handles.
The author seems very interested in Wikipedia's goings-on, yet doesn't know that Oversight doesn't actually delete anything. Like any good database, Deleted entries are marked "deleted" and hidden from all but the (fair few) admins, and Oversighted entries are marked "oversighted" and hidden from all but the (handful of) oversighters.
Surely the removal from public view of an article/edit/whogivesashit has the same public effect as the deletion of that same article/edit/whogivesashit... 'Oversight' is still a very dubious term for the removal from public consumption of an article/edit/whogivesashit, and exemplifies a very cynical attitude towards itself/its users/whogivesashit.
But to reiterate on a recurring theme both in this post and in the comments in general... Who really gives a shit? It's Wikipedia! We laugh at journos who use it as an authoritative source of information, we amuse ourselves with premature stories of the death of celebs (some of whom I am sure would benefit from some truthfulness in those stories), and we revel in the glory of their misfortunes when they drop the inevitable bollock from time to time. Long may they continue to be a source of hilarity and unintended comedic talent.
am i the only one?
who thinks that the web would be an entirely better place without Wikipedia, the Wikitwunts & its general bollocks / waste of bandwidth?
thought not . . . :)
and beg all you want for my $, I can think of 2 billion more deserving causes than Wikipedia who I would support first
<praying it goes the same way as AOL>
Dead celebs not Wikipedia's fault
"And we have seen at least the nominal end of the site's knack for killing people who aren't really dead."
That's actually not the Wikifiddlers' doing. Rumours of celebrity deaths were largely the result of Anonymous engaging in planned raids. We generally decided on a celeb to kill, then flooded Twitter, Facebook and Myspace with rumours, Youtube with lamentation videos (with lots of views to push them up to the top), and of course updated the relevant Wikipedia page. With thousands of /b/tards constantly revising Wikipedia the Wikifiddlers had a hard time keeping the article reverted - hence Wikpedia's reputation on the subject.
The reason it no longer happens is also not Wikipedia's doing, but the underage b& newfag cancer that has infested 4chan of late. No more is it BOFH/PFY-type Anons on steroids sacking websites, these days it's nothing but teenage boys trying to get laid by teenage camwhores and Anonymous is no more. Thus, Wikipedia no longer gets raided and in that manner seems to have improved its game.
Title goes here
"No more is it BOFH/PFY-type Anons on steroids sacking websites, these days it's nothing but teenage boys trying to get laid by teenage camwhores"
BWAHAHAHAHA! So it's /b/ as it's always been, then?
"The cancer that is killing /b/" IS the b-tards themselves and has always been.
I am utterly indifferent to all things Wikipedian
but I have had a beer with David Gerard. He's a pretty nice bloke, actually.
@ Trivial Pursuit
Once you understand why the pursuing of wikitude, have a crack at solving the global warming stance.
I kinda understand the wikistuff, it's just funny; but denying climate change leaves you standing in one camp with some farting couch potatoes (justifying their own ends), plus Nick Griffin (don't know why he's into it). Oh no, it's not denying change (that would require argueing), it's finding conspiracies in the IPCC side of the field (I'd say "half," but it's 99% --- the original oil-sponsored suits and Griffin; the bloggers don't count).
So yes, I'd like a clear stab at explanation. Pretty please. It seems basic physics/chemistry: you have a closed system, you add a shedload of stuff to it, and ElReg supposes it remains in the same state? WTF?!
El Reg's AGW stance (Was: Trivial Pursuit)
"So yes, I'd like a clear stab at explanation. Pretty please. It seems basic physics/chemistry: you have a closed system, you add a shedload of stuff to it, and ElReg supposes it remains in the same state?"
I can't speak for El Reg, but here would be my response.
Firstly, it isn't a closed system. Energetically, about 99.9999% of the energy comes from the sun and is then re-radiated almost immediately. Materially, the movement of CO2 and methane in and out of "geological storage" is one of the huge unknowns in any climate model.
Secondly, the real question is not "Is it changing?" or "Is it our fault that it is changing?" or even "Can we do anything now to stop it?" but rather, "Are the costs of avoiding or mitigating climate change greater or less than the benefits?". Answering that question, of course, is Hard (scientifically) and involves Value Judgements (politically). In neither sense is it "settled". The scientific consensus has got about as far as the second of these questions, and even that is under fire following the CRU emails debacle. I don't think there is even a debate yet, let alone a consensus, on the political point.
"but denying climate change leaves you standing in one camp with some farting couch potatoes (justifying their own ends), plus Nick Griffin (don't know why he's into it)"
Thirdly, as already noted, I can't speak for El Reg. Nor can I speak for any of the other people who aren't signed up to the green consensus. None of them speak for me. I'm not even denying climate change (since, as noted, I'm only interested in the answer to the fourth question) and I'm certainly not standing in "one camp" with anyone. (As far as I know, I'm the only person on the planet who holds exactly my views on the subject.)
Fourthly, at least some of the articles have implied scientific malpractice by various people who appear to be influential in international circles. The allegation that the CRU has lost its raw data or cherry-picked it for publication is one that borders on scientific fraud. It would be reckless if the international community made expensive decisions based on results which are not now reproducible (data loss) or perhaps never were (cherry-picking). And you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand this or have a legitimate opinion on the matter.
Think of the children
It's nice to see them trying to clear up their act. Most of their articles are pretty good these days, but how would you spot minor mistakes like this :
I don't know wikipedia politics,
but I have exchanged emails with Davd Gerard many times when I was a member of the Open Rights Group which he was also a supporter of. He always seems a very decent bloke to me with sound views. I don't know what's gone on here, but I know he did a Hell of a lot for them. A Hell of a lot. I hope he's not too gutted by what looks like ingratitude to an outsider. Hopefully some lucky other community project will benefit from his energies soon, instead.
A beer for Elric, uh, David. ;)
re: comments at 12:26
hmm, who to believe, who to believe?
Re: Who to believe...
You have no evidence to believe one or the other (though I'm not AC), so you should just base your opinions on your personal experiences with him. And as you have none, you should treat him the same as anyone else - respectfully until they do something to make you withdraw it, not based on what others say you should think. Only sensible way.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Actually he's not that bad, just a sleeze and someone with an overinflated sense of his own importance, probably has done more to discredit wikiwackyland than anyone else, someone seems to have seen sense.
Information Wants To Be Oversighted
It's a Pyramid Scheme, and the Elks are behind it ---
Tanks for the information, but I'd prefer sensory deprivation ---