Post by blissyu2 on Jul 8, 2008 3:27:41 GMT -5
Well, hell has finally frozen over and Wikipedia Review finally has its own article on Wikipedia.
So, as someone who joined it very early on, is their number 1 ever poster, as at when I was banned was the oldest poster there, and for 2 years owned the site (including when I was banned), what do I think about this? If you want to know, read on.
First off, I am overjoyed. It is deserved. Indeed, I am proud. It doesn't matter what they do or say about me, I know that a lot of what is good about that site is because of the effort that I put in. It makes me feel like my sacrifices amounted to something. The popularity is good too. I can raise my head high that I helped to create that, that I stood up to Jimbo Wales, took on law suits, and made sure that the whole place stayed above board, dealing with some really nasty individuals, for that.
It is really a big deal that we got there finally. It has been a long time coming. Wikipedia Review should have had their own article since when Wikitruth got their own article, which was 17th April 2007. If Andrew Orlowski had done what he had planned to do and written about us instead of about Wikitruth, we would have had our own article then.
Wikitruth perhaps was slightly more popular for a while, but I found it so amusing that they put a site that had all of 10 contributors ahead of one that had 1,000. That they would put a site that is only ever viewed by people interested in Wikipedia ahead of one that is viewed by critics of all kinds. Wikipedia Review was always more important than Wikitruth.
The problem was that Wikitruth was quite certainly involving CURRENT Wikipedia administrators. Thus if they upset Wikitruth, then they might get their revenge on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Review, on the other hand, was all people saying who they were, who weren't Wikipedia admins (although a few visitors were Wikipedia admins, only to be stripped of adminship), and Wikipedia could deal with it on Wikipedia, simply by banning or sanctioning people who participated. They were able to control the site.
It was only relatively recently that Wikipedia Review was able to stop that by consistently having people not give away their real identity. Sure, some people do, perhaps because they are banned already and don't care, or alternatively if they are not there to criticise, or otherwise think that they won't get in trouble with Wikipedia if they did.
People like SlimVirgin and Jayjg fought diligently to prevent it, but yay we won! Woo hoo! I feel quite elated.
Now I can sit back and watch as the liars that currently control the site try to hide the history. Try to hide the fact that Igor Alexander started it. Try to hide the fact that Blu Aardvark ran it. Try to hide the fact that Selina was never meant to be an administrator. Try to hide the fact that I owned it, as at when they illegally banned me.
The thing is that eventually people on Wikipedia will dig and dig and dig until they dig up the truth. And it doesn't matter what I do, eventually they will find it, and unveil it.
The thing is that a respectable encyclopaedic article about something like that would include who owned it. It would include the founder. It would include at a bare minimum who owned it at different stages.
Imagine reading an article about the Coca-Cola company that didn't lsay who the founder and various owners had been? What use is it if they don't have such important details?
I have always kept an accurate record of Wikipedia Review's history, and in spite of "revisionists" who have recently tried to pretend that various things didn't happen (leading this charging of lying has always been Somey, who thinks that truth acts as a big black mark against our name), the reality is that they can be found.
So Wikipedia can go around and say "Oh no we need more evidence" but ultimately long term they want it known.
Do you think that SlimVirgin will be content with it not mentioning that Igor Alexander, who she claimed was holocaust denier Alex Linder, didn't run it? We know that he DID found it. She would do her level best to prove that. And, quite frankly, I have faith in SlimVirgin's abilities.
Such things won't hurt Wikipedia Review's popularity of course. All that they will do is to give credit where credit is due. SlimVirgin's motivations might be to smear (or at least to prevent the smear on her name) but ultimately she will do me a favour.
The only people that will be hurt out of doing this will be the people who benefit from the lies. People like Somey, who tries desperately to keep it all a secret, people like Selina who likes to pretend that she was the founder, and people like Kato who are trying to control the whole thing. They will be the people who get hurt. For everyone else, it is a good thing.
And quite frankly, let's be honest, it is worthy of an entry. It is notable.
So, as someone who joined it very early on, is their number 1 ever poster, as at when I was banned was the oldest poster there, and for 2 years owned the site (including when I was banned), what do I think about this? If you want to know, read on.
First off, I am overjoyed. It is deserved. Indeed, I am proud. It doesn't matter what they do or say about me, I know that a lot of what is good about that site is because of the effort that I put in. It makes me feel like my sacrifices amounted to something. The popularity is good too. I can raise my head high that I helped to create that, that I stood up to Jimbo Wales, took on law suits, and made sure that the whole place stayed above board, dealing with some really nasty individuals, for that.
It is really a big deal that we got there finally. It has been a long time coming. Wikipedia Review should have had their own article since when Wikitruth got their own article, which was 17th April 2007. If Andrew Orlowski had done what he had planned to do and written about us instead of about Wikitruth, we would have had our own article then.
Wikitruth perhaps was slightly more popular for a while, but I found it so amusing that they put a site that had all of 10 contributors ahead of one that had 1,000. That they would put a site that is only ever viewed by people interested in Wikipedia ahead of one that is viewed by critics of all kinds. Wikipedia Review was always more important than Wikitruth.
The problem was that Wikitruth was quite certainly involving CURRENT Wikipedia administrators. Thus if they upset Wikitruth, then they might get their revenge on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Review, on the other hand, was all people saying who they were, who weren't Wikipedia admins (although a few visitors were Wikipedia admins, only to be stripped of adminship), and Wikipedia could deal with it on Wikipedia, simply by banning or sanctioning people who participated. They were able to control the site.
It was only relatively recently that Wikipedia Review was able to stop that by consistently having people not give away their real identity. Sure, some people do, perhaps because they are banned already and don't care, or alternatively if they are not there to criticise, or otherwise think that they won't get in trouble with Wikipedia if they did.
People like SlimVirgin and Jayjg fought diligently to prevent it, but yay we won! Woo hoo! I feel quite elated.
Now I can sit back and watch as the liars that currently control the site try to hide the history. Try to hide the fact that Igor Alexander started it. Try to hide the fact that Blu Aardvark ran it. Try to hide the fact that Selina was never meant to be an administrator. Try to hide the fact that I owned it, as at when they illegally banned me.
The thing is that eventually people on Wikipedia will dig and dig and dig until they dig up the truth. And it doesn't matter what I do, eventually they will find it, and unveil it.
The thing is that a respectable encyclopaedic article about something like that would include who owned it. It would include the founder. It would include at a bare minimum who owned it at different stages.
Imagine reading an article about the Coca-Cola company that didn't lsay who the founder and various owners had been? What use is it if they don't have such important details?
I have always kept an accurate record of Wikipedia Review's history, and in spite of "revisionists" who have recently tried to pretend that various things didn't happen (leading this charging of lying has always been Somey, who thinks that truth acts as a big black mark against our name), the reality is that they can be found.
So Wikipedia can go around and say "Oh no we need more evidence" but ultimately long term they want it known.
Do you think that SlimVirgin will be content with it not mentioning that Igor Alexander, who she claimed was holocaust denier Alex Linder, didn't run it? We know that he DID found it. She would do her level best to prove that. And, quite frankly, I have faith in SlimVirgin's abilities.
Such things won't hurt Wikipedia Review's popularity of course. All that they will do is to give credit where credit is due. SlimVirgin's motivations might be to smear (or at least to prevent the smear on her name) but ultimately she will do me a favour.
The only people that will be hurt out of doing this will be the people who benefit from the lies. People like Somey, who tries desperately to keep it all a secret, people like Selina who likes to pretend that she was the founder, and people like Kato who are trying to control the whole thing. They will be the people who get hurt. For everyone else, it is a good thing.
And quite frankly, let's be honest, it is worthy of an entry. It is notable.
