Post by blissyu2 on Jul 6, 2008 10:14:31 GMT -5
When Wikitruth began, Wikipedia Review was already 6 months old. Even then, 18 months ago, Wikipedia Review was already a major site, with more people using it to criticise Wikipedia than any other site.
Andrew Orlowski, from The Register, went to Wikipedia Review to interview people for an article he was going to write on it.
Instead, Andrew Orlowski changed his mind and instead wrote an article on a new site - Wikitruth - which gave birth to its great early success.
Andrew Orlowski never said why he changed his mind, and indeed he never did write that article on Wikipedia Review that he promised to write. He also stopped posting on WR afterwards.
Wikitruth was supposedly started by disgruntled CURRENT Wikipedia administrators. While Grace Note had previously claimed that he wanted to make a "better" version of Wikipedia Review, which he wanted to call "Wikipedia Report", Wikitruth people have denied that he was ever involved. He might have been, but if he was he doesn't seem to be anymore.
Wikitruth used "humour" to deal with Wikipedia issues. Like Encyclopaedia Dramatica, they made it amusing, to attract viewers. Unlike ED, Wikitruth focussed also on truth.
But there was an unsettling aspect to Wikitruth. Wikitruth focussed on stalking users. They displayed information that *SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC*. There was information about Kelly Martin secretly being a guy, with photos of him and web logs and so forth. That equals stalking! They did the same thing for many other Wikipedia administrators.
Also, Wikitruth stalked a number of users, such as Brian Peppers. They "uncensored" articles that should have stayed deleted.
Wikipedia Review always prided itself on stopping stalking, and never engaging in any behaviour that resembled it.
Of course, I left Wikipedia Review because Kato was doing things that resembled stalking, and was then banned because of my protest (as explained, my account was hacked as I was the owner).
Wikipedia Review therefore *WAS*, at least while I was involved, superior to Wikitruth on moral grounds. Furthermore, Wikipedia Review was the original, Wikitruth was the copy, making Wikipedia Review superior again.
The problem is that since the Kato incident, Wikipedia Review has dredged deeper into evil, doing more things that resemble stalking.
They have recently begun showing private information about people that should never have been shown. Not because they abused people but just because they could.
I cannot agree with such things. If you cannot put yourself in their shoes and be happy, then you shouldn't be doing it.
I don't want to feel like I am a part of Wikipedia Review. I helped to make it great, but I do not want to be associated with the evil that it has become.
I'd like to hope that they will turn themselves around soon, and perhaps also let me back in. But until they face the truth of what Kato did and continues to do, I don't see that happening.
Until Kato is banned, and the entirety of what he is done is exposed and accepted, Wikipedia Review will continue to go downhill.
Popularity wise, of course, their numbers will soar. A respectable site falsely accused of horrors but now finally succumbing to them is something that everyone wants to see.
They need to get rid of Kato though before they can start to heal.
Andrew Orlowski, from The Register, went to Wikipedia Review to interview people for an article he was going to write on it.
Instead, Andrew Orlowski changed his mind and instead wrote an article on a new site - Wikitruth - which gave birth to its great early success.
Andrew Orlowski never said why he changed his mind, and indeed he never did write that article on Wikipedia Review that he promised to write. He also stopped posting on WR afterwards.
Wikitruth was supposedly started by disgruntled CURRENT Wikipedia administrators. While Grace Note had previously claimed that he wanted to make a "better" version of Wikipedia Review, which he wanted to call "Wikipedia Report", Wikitruth people have denied that he was ever involved. He might have been, but if he was he doesn't seem to be anymore.
Wikitruth used "humour" to deal with Wikipedia issues. Like Encyclopaedia Dramatica, they made it amusing, to attract viewers. Unlike ED, Wikitruth focussed also on truth.
But there was an unsettling aspect to Wikitruth. Wikitruth focussed on stalking users. They displayed information that *SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC*. There was information about Kelly Martin secretly being a guy, with photos of him and web logs and so forth. That equals stalking! They did the same thing for many other Wikipedia administrators.
Also, Wikitruth stalked a number of users, such as Brian Peppers. They "uncensored" articles that should have stayed deleted.
Wikipedia Review always prided itself on stopping stalking, and never engaging in any behaviour that resembled it.
Of course, I left Wikipedia Review because Kato was doing things that resembled stalking, and was then banned because of my protest (as explained, my account was hacked as I was the owner).
Wikipedia Review therefore *WAS*, at least while I was involved, superior to Wikitruth on moral grounds. Furthermore, Wikipedia Review was the original, Wikitruth was the copy, making Wikipedia Review superior again.
The problem is that since the Kato incident, Wikipedia Review has dredged deeper into evil, doing more things that resemble stalking.
They have recently begun showing private information about people that should never have been shown. Not because they abused people but just because they could.
I cannot agree with such things. If you cannot put yourself in their shoes and be happy, then you shouldn't be doing it.
I don't want to feel like I am a part of Wikipedia Review. I helped to make it great, but I do not want to be associated with the evil that it has become.
I'd like to hope that they will turn themselves around soon, and perhaps also let me back in. But until they face the truth of what Kato did and continues to do, I don't see that happening.
Until Kato is banned, and the entirety of what he is done is exposed and accepted, Wikipedia Review will continue to go downhill.
Popularity wise, of course, their numbers will soar. A respectable site falsely accused of horrors but now finally succumbing to them is something that everyone wants to see.
They need to get rid of Kato though before they can start to heal.
