Wednesday, November 10, 2010

"Jimbo" Wales' smarmy smile

[Nov 13: somebody obviously talked to his publicist since the photo-advert has been changed to something more open and less freakish]

Have you seen "Jimbo" Wales' face on that donations advert in wikipedia? What does that facial expression say to you?

It says to me

  • "I hold you in contempt"
  • "I am your superior and I condescend to smile to you"
  • "although it's more of a smirk"
  • "give me money you peon"
  • "I want money for my 6 figure salary"
  • "give me money so that I may continue to look down on you and dismiss you, the people who made wikipedia, in favour of the bootlicks and lickspittles that lick my arse and kick you down and spit on you"

And of all things, it says this to me most loudly:

  • "I am uncomfortable treating you like human beings or as if I cared what you thought in any way, shape or form. because deep down I despise you"
  • "except not so deep down I guess"

The more I think about it, the more his smile says to me. None of it good. Given he's ostensibly begging inferiors (and he does consider us all to be his inferiors, people of absolutely no consequence) to give him money, yeah he's not very comfortable with it. It'd be kinda like a millionaire begging for money on a street corner.

And before you bother, yes it is a fact that "Jimbo" Wales holds mere wikipedia contributors (let alone readers) in utter contempt. He holds his fellow co-founder of wikipedia in enough loathing to try to write him out of history. The only people he likes are the cultish assholes and power-mongers who routinely lick his arse. Those are the ones he calls "top wikipedians" and claims "create 90% of content" a claim which is factually ridiculous on its face.

An empirical analysis has determined that 90% of content that survives is made by transients who never bother making a second contribution. Jimbo's cherished "top contributors" are responsible only for transient edits to category names that happen to affect thousands of pages simultaneously. These cherished "administrators" of Jimbo's (jackboots is more accurate) are responsible for all those loathesome [citation required] tags littering Wikipedia like so much garbage.

So yeah, apparently Jimbo's incapable of dealing with anybody else as an equal. His partner he backstabbed and the transient people Wikipedia depends on that don't need him in any way he dismisses entirely. Only lickspittle / jackboots get any recognition from him - those smegheads get catered to by Jimbo's exquisitely tailored totalitarian monarchy. So yeah, getting put into a position where he is the inferior would raise that hated banner of equality he dreads.

I might as well declare here that I despise everything that Wikipedia stands for: mob rule, group-think, liberal bourgeois orthodoxy, a combination of false authority and politically correct blandness (the so-called NPOV), truth by consensus (wikiality), clique-ishness, and fascistic oppression of dissenters. I yearn to see the day when Wikipedia will be torn down and destroyed and its top "wikipedians", SchutzStaffel to a body of lies, are hunted down and killed like the Gestapo members they actually are.

9 comments:

Stephen R. Diamond said...

See http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/888/wikipedia.html for a similar view.

Richard Kulisz said...

Halfway through my response I decided it was long enough for its own blog entry. Enjoy.

Richard Kulisz said...

> Science is the product of hard work and a rigorous critical assimilation of the achievements of past cultures and epochs, and it is embodied in the work of authoritative figures and institutions.

And in the VERY NEXT paragraph, he lambasts feudalism. Wow.

But not really surprising since Marxists are well-known for that kind of blatant hypocrisy.

Leonard said...

Although criticizing wikipedia is of value, it won't make any difference to anyone unless you can design and build something better. People use wiki in spite of its flaws, because it is the most advanced thing out there.

Certainly a better online encyclopedia would be far more important to the world than, say, a new operating system.

Richard Kulisz said...

You are so fucking wrong that if I weren't used to people being totally fucking clueless, I would find it unbelievable.

For your information, a non-fascist encyclopedia would have only marginal increased value for the world. And anything that would greatly improve upon wikipedia would no longer look even remotely like an encyclopedia.

What is astonishing isn't how wrong you are but the total and utter deprivation of your imagination. Your imagination is so poor that you make the typical dull-witted cretin look like a creative genius in the midst of a manic fugue fueled by LSD.

Your imagination is so poor that you make the typical banjo playing South Carolina backwoods hick look like a glitzy Hollywood star living the high life. Your imagination is so barren that you make the Sahara desert look like a lush tropical rainforest.

You are so staggeringly lacking in imagination that you could be one of the mindless grey-faced zombies in Apple's 1984 ad.

The only thing you ask of the world is a slightly improved encyclopedia? You sir are a mindless robotic drone. I haven't the slightest clue why you would be reading my blog but I suggest you stop immediately lest your teeny tiny mind explode from the pressure of new ideas.

Richard Kulisz said...

And considering that you're a lying hypocritical ignorant ahistorical American market fundamentalist trying to coopt anarchism (which is a communist ideology) and that I am a very vocal communist, I really don't see why you'd be reading my blog. Stop, stop now.

Leonard said...

Nice abuse.

I read what I want. You put it out there. Make your blog private if you don't want me to read it -- not that I necessarily will stick to it. But, you are interesting and right on some things, at least, in spite of being a commie. On the other hand you are hilariously abusive and argue in such poor faith that it must be a pose. Good luck with that! I laughed, though, so maybe it will work for you.

As for our politics, just think of me as a reactionary (a label I am quite content with) and maybe you'll be happier.

Incidentally, I ask very little of the world. I am usually happy with what I get -- there's plenty of new new things all the time in the computer age. But yes, I do happen to think that a better Wikipedia could be of huge political significance for the human race. Even wiki itself, with all of its groupthink and authority-worship (and thus left wing bias), is a huge step forward for humanity -- far more than a new OS.

Richard Kulisz said...

Arguing in good faith presupposes an equality between the two of us that has never existed and can never exist. The poverty of imagination you displayed in the second paragraph of your comment makes any notion of equality between us a sick joke.

And that was before I found out you're a lying hypocritical twisted scummy fuck. You call yourself an anarchist despite worshiping corporate authority. You call yourself an anti-authoritarian despite wishing every human being to be an abject slave with exactly ZERO rights.

Arguing with you is far lower than a sick joke, it's a desecration of everything human discourse is about. I would sooner argue with an honest Fascist than I would argue with you. The Marxists are more honest than you, and with their nasty habits of blatant lying and vying for power, that's really saying something.

You are pond scum. And just like pond scum, I would only lower myself to interacting with you if my life depended on it. I consider my current comments to you to be in the vein of 'sterilizing stagnant water with a torch'.

Leonard said...

Arguing in good faith does not presume equality. It presumes only that people are being honest about what they are saying.

I would only lower myself to interacting with you if my life depended on it.

A performative contradiction! Excellent.

As for your understanding of my politics, suffice to say that you are quite ignorant on the subject. Fortunately, this does not matter for the purpose of discussing wikipedia. If you think it does, it shows the puerility of your mind; but really I have a hard time believing that such written hostility as you display is anything but a performance.