*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #60 on: July 17, 2014, 09:15:37 PM »
I want a person I can hold accountable when I'm not happy.
Currently this person is you.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Shane

  • *
  • Posts: 2980
  • If you will it, it is no dream
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »
This is all very strange, Wilmore comes here upset about Wikipedia and no-one gives a shit, now he wants to fix things. Which is fine, but why did it take so long and for him to have some negative reason to come here to do it?
Quote from: Rushy
How do you know you weren't literally given metaphorical wings?

Thork

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2014, 09:28:04 PM »
I want a person I can hold accountable when I'm not happy.
Currently this person is you.
Hardly. The Zetetic council is a 5 man (4 men and a woman) team. Then we have 3 admins that are ever-present. Its not a bottle-neck of frustration all depending on one absent person.

Ghost of V

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2014, 09:49:12 PM »
I feel like the zetetic council doesn't do anything and should be abolished. Nothing says "we're better than you" better than a private club.

Thork

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2014, 09:53:45 PM »
Sure, we can review. Go start a thread. Tom has been ill, I started a new job, I've no idea what happened to the others. We haven't had enough time to get anything done.

If we abolish the zetetic council, are you going to do anything to help? If not, and we aren't doing anything ... what's the difference?

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2014, 10:14:17 PM »
To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.

I'm really sorry to hear that. :[ I hope things go well and (though we've never talked before, really) I am told I'm a good person to vent/complain to if you ever feel really low and want someone to just talk to or something. Don't know how weird you might find that, but. :P


Ah, you're right, I didn't, sorry. All I'll say is that I think there are other options which don't involve blue (at least not in the way I think you mean it), but I should stress that I am very much speaking hypothetically and personally. I'll leave it at that for now unless anyone addresses me directly.

I am curious about what you mean, exactly. I don't think you should worry too much about being part of the discussion here; I don't think that anyone particularly minds or is going to make a deal about it, and frankly it's nice to have someone from there actually attempting some sort of dialogue. Don't let people venting at you make you think it's not appreciated (at least by some of us), I for one like you and definitely do appreciate what you're trying to do.

That being said now, I don't think any solution is going to happen that doesn't involve the three Ps in charge of the forum at least. Even in conjunction with Davis maybe (that's up to them, I can't speak for them, obviously). But, frankly, I don't think any of us are willing to go back to how the forum has always been run now that we know what it's like to be on such a well-run forum that gets stuff done consistently, quickly and openly. It is simply not an option. PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be trusted. I'm aware that people over there have their reasons for not getting things done and not being around, and I don't blame anyone personally for that, but I don't really take it as an acceptable excuse when this is the alternative.

Sorry if I'm bringing up things that weren't even posted about, I may apparently have some excess frustration to get out still as well, but I think you can understand my points. So I am curious, do you think there is any chance Daniel would allow this? To have PP&P (maybe along with Davis if that makes him feel better) run the forum while he does...whatever he does? Frankly, them running the social media might be a good idea as well, seeing as we've already accrued twice the Facebook members as the other site, as well as the rest of the social media pages, but one thing at a time :P
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 10:23:47 PM by Snupes »
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Thork

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2014, 10:22:47 PM »
Davis is poison. Why are people talking like they'd want Davis and Daniel in charge? that was the problem last time.

QFT
PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be rusted.


*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2014, 10:28:31 PM »
Davis is poison. Why are people talking like they'd want Davis and Daniel in charge? that was the problem last time.

I'm not going to be too mean since I don't like being mean, I can understand why people wouldn't want John back after a lot of the things he's said and his general lateness with things, I'm just putting the possibility out there of him and pizaaplanet and Parsifal running it if there isn't a chance in hell that Daniel would just allow P3 to do it themselves. Personally I'd rather it was just them, but

As for Daniel, I don't know, I don't think I mind him in charge of the society itself as long as he leaves the forum to us. I mean, it's not like he does nothing (even if the 'something' he does is rare), he's found and gotten a lot of documents while, frankly, we haven't really done anything in terms of actual FES-related moving-forward here. I'm sure we could if we tried, but the fact of the matter is that we haven't. If you have better alternatives, though, I'd genuinely like to have a good, conducive discussion about that here. I just want what's genuinely best for the Society, not just the forum. The thing is, the forum is a huge part of the society (it's most of it, in fact), and I happen to seriously love this place with all my heart, so it takes priority for me.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5231
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2014, 10:44:06 PM »
I don't mind that Daniel is in charge of the site, but in the evens that there would be a merge, Parsifal and PizaaPlanet should be administrating the forum. Not Daniel. Daniel can take care of the site for all I care, but the forum should be run by people who are capable of running a forum efficiently. This is all I have to say about this.
The Mastery.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4195
    • View Profile
Re: Wikipedia
« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2014, 02:48:11 AM »
However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site, Daniel does not have issues with the members at large. He has very specific issues of trust with both you and Parsifal, and (frankly) for very understandable reasons. It is simply not reasonable to say "I do not see how personalities come into play here". They very obviously do, and you need to accept and acknowledge that it is a factor. Pretending otherwise is simply not tenable.

I haven't addressed this thread yet (frankly I haven't addressed much here of importance lately at all, hoo hoo) but as someone who really hasn't taken a particular side on this issue and continues to enjoy the benefits of both forums, albeit on more of a part-time basis lately, I feel like I'm in a position to address this particular argument in a fair, balanced, and unbiased way.  It may very well be that Parsifal and PP started this forum in the first place because they don't like Daniel on a personal level, as a kind of "take that"; I don't pretend to be able to read their minds or divine their intentions.  However, they didn't convince the majority of the forum's members to move based on such a personality clash.  In the last couple years there have been some very real, very legitimate issues with the way the forum has been run that have affected all of us.  I am convinced it was entirely the way the forum has been run by its administration that led to the schism. 

There was a time, long ago, that despite Daniel's general absence in any personal capacity on the forums I nonetheless felt like he cared about it, and the site ran well.  That time is long gone.  Maybe he got bored with it.  I doubt many people would blame him; look at all the people who have come, stayed a long time, made a lot of useful contributions, and then disappeared.  But whatever the case may be Daniel showed nothing but apathy toward the forum for a long time, and if he now regrets his lack of involvement and interest in promoting the Society and the forums so be it, but I don't think anybody can be blamed for regarding it as being maybe a bit too little, too late.  I honestly don't even think he was even aware of the split until quite some time after it actually took place.  I may be wrong about that so please don't rake me over the coals over it.

Frankly I myself was upset with how things were being handled at the time and I felt JD was being something of a condescending prick when he tried to address it.  He has since apologized, and I accepted the apology, but it still goes to show how deep the problems over there were/are.

I would love to see a reconciliation but the fact is that theflatearthsociety.org is still a bit of a mess and it needs cleaning up, and Parsifal is absolutely correct that if Daniel wants to fix things, he's going to have to relinquish a little control.  Not to Parsifal or PP, mind you; given their histories on the old site it would probably be insane for him to even consider it.  But, somebody who genuinely cares about the Society, is willing to be a constant presence, and knows what he is doing.  I nominate Thork (lol j/k aren't I hilarious?).

Anyway, the Wikipedia thing is just stupid and whoever did it should feel ashamed of themselves.  In fact they must or else they would have owned up to it and either apologized or tried to defend themselves.  I doubt it was PP or Parsifal, but I am also quite sure it wasn't just some noob passing through.

But sorry, I really have to say that I don't think that most of the members who now post here (such as it is, it's a wasteland here) and don't post there left the other site due to any kind of clash of personalities.  I think it's a lot deeper and more legitimate than that.  At this point I think that to try to put the blame on such a thing to any degree is simply counter-productive, unnecessary, and frankly unfair.  Just my two cents.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Wilmore

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Vice President
    • View Profile
    • The Hibernian Zetetic
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2014, 01:33:30 PM »
Sorry about that. I hope you are over it now. You're a good-looking chap. Get some built up shoes and you'll be fine. ;)

I hope that there isn't anything else wrong. I lost my long-term girlfriend who walked out on me when I lost my job and my home. That led to a nervous breakdown. It probably took me 3 years to sort my life out. Unfortunately for you, a lot of that frustration played itself out on your forum. I'm better now though. I don't think I've had a single hissy fit since I've been here. :-*


Thanks. I guess this isn't really the place to talk about it, but I've handled it about as well as can be expected, and I don't have any other Big Life Events going on, so I only have one front to cope with. It was just a big drawn-out spiral of unhappiness, then I thought I'd fixed it, then it turned out I hadn't fixed it and had in fact been treated very badly, then I tried really hard to make things OK, and then I was treated pretty badly again. Trickle-truth, repeated dishonesty, you get the gist. I came back to the other forum briefly in the eye of the storm, but then the rest came out and I just didn't have the energy to approach any of this.


To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.

I'm really sorry to hear that. :[ I hope things go well and (though we've never talked before, really) I am told I'm a good person to vent/complain to if you ever feel really low and want someone to just talk to or something. Don't know how weird you might find that, but. :P


Thanks for the offer, and I do appreciate it. It wasn't something I really planned to bring up here, but I can understand why people might view all this as late in the day, and I felt I needed to give more than just some vague mumbling about my life outside the society.


I am curious about what you mean, exactly. I don't think you should worry too much about being part of the discussion here; I don't think that anyone particularly minds or is going to make a deal about it, and frankly it's nice to have someone from there actually attempting some sort of dialogue. Don't let people venting at you make you think it's not appreciated (at least by some of us), I for one like you and definitely do appreciate what you're trying to do.


As long as people are happy to have me weigh in, I can. I'm just wary of coming across as trying to unduly influence things.


That being said now, I don't think any solution is going to happen that doesn't involve the three Ps in charge of the forum at least. Even in conjunction with Davis maybe (that's up to them, I can't speak for them, obviously). But, frankly, I don't think any of us are willing to go back to how the forum has always been run now that we know what it's like to be on such a well-run forum that gets stuff done consistently, quickly and openly. It is simply not an option. PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be trusted. I'm aware that people over there have their reasons for not getting things done and not being around, and I don't blame anyone personally for that, but I don't really take it as an acceptable excuse when this is the alternative.

Sorry if I'm bringing up things that weren't even posted about, I may apparently have some excess frustration to get out still as well, but I think you can understand my points. So I am curious, do you think there is any chance Daniel would allow this? To have PP&P (maybe along with Davis if that makes him feel better) run the forum while he does...whatever he does? Frankly, them running the social media might be a good idea as well, seeing as we've already accrued twice the Facebook members as the other site, as well as the rest of the social media pages, but one thing at a time :P


I suppose it's a bit early for me to say anything, and PP has made it clear that he wants the community to identify its goals before we get round to actually exchanging proposals. But broadly I think that anything is possible, and that there is real scope for real change. I know that sounds like dreadful politic-speak, but I'm hesitant to speak on Daniel's behalf at this stage.


I should also add that I am entirely aware of how unsatisfactory the administration of the other forum has been, how much disillusionment that caused for the members, and how demoralizing it was for the staff. That you're all here is proof enough of the legitimacy of those grievances, and it's entirely obvious that a return to the status quo is not something anyone here is interested in. That includes me, by the way.


However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site, Daniel does not have issues with the members at large. He has very specific issues of trust with both you and Parsifal, and (frankly) for very understandable reasons. It is simply not reasonable to say "I do not see how personalities come into play here". They very obviously do, and you need to accept and acknowledge that it is a factor. Pretending otherwise is simply not tenable.

I haven't addressed this thread yet (frankly I haven't addressed much here of importance lately at all, hoo hoo) but as someone who really hasn't taken a particular side on this issue and continues to enjoy the benefits of both forums, albeit on more of a part-time basis lately, I feel like I'm in a position to address this particular argument in a fair, balanced, and unbiased way.  It may very well be that Parsifal and PP started this forum in the first place because they don't like Daniel on a personal level, as a kind of "take that"; I don't pretend to be able to read their minds or divine their intentions.  However, they didn't convince the majority of the forum's members to move based on such a personality clash.  In the last couple years there have been some very real, very legitimate issues with the way the forum has been run that have affected all of us.  I am convinced it was entirely the way the forum has been run by its administration that led to the schism. 

There was a time, long ago, that despite Daniel's general absence in any personal capacity on the forums I nonetheless felt like he cared about it, and the site ran well.  That time is long gone.  Maybe he got bored with it.  I doubt many people would blame him; look at all the people who have come, stayed a long time, made a lot of useful contributions, and then disappeared.  But whatever the case may be Daniel showed nothing but apathy toward the forum for a long time, and if he now regrets his lack of involvement and interest in promoting the Society and the forums so be it, but I don't think anybody can be blamed for regarding it as being maybe a bit too little, too late.  I honestly don't even think he was even aware of the split until quite some time after it actually took place.  I may be wrong about that so please don't rake me over the coals over it.

Frankly I myself was upset with how things were being handled at the time and I felt JD was being something of a condescending prick when he tried to address it.  He has since apologized, and I accepted the apology, but it still goes to show how deep the problems over there were/are.

I would love to see a reconciliation but the fact is that theflatearthsociety.org is still a bit of a mess and it needs cleaning up, and Parsifal is absolutely correct that if Daniel wants to fix things, he's going to have to relinquish a little control.  Not to Parsifal or PP, mind you; given their histories on the old site it would probably be insane for him to even consider it.  But, somebody who genuinely cares about the Society, is willing to be a constant presence, and knows what he is doing.  I nominate Thork (lol j/k aren't I hilarious?).

Anyway, the Wikipedia thing is just stupid and whoever did it should feel ashamed of themselves.  In fact they must or else they would have owned up to it and either apologized or tried to defend themselves.  I doubt it was PP or Parsifal, but I am also quite sure it wasn't just some noob passing through.

But sorry, I really have to say that I don't think that most of the members who now post here (such as it is, it's a wasteland here) and don't post there left the other site due to any kind of clash of personalities.  I think it's a lot deeper and more legitimate than that.  At this point I think that to try to put the blame on such a thing to any degree is simply counter-productive, unnecessary, and frankly unfair.  Just my two cents.


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here - perhaps I've been unclear. I know that the reason the members moved over was due to poor administration of the site, and I'm not at all suggesting that had anything to do with a clash of personalities. People were unhappy, this forum was better run, and so they moved. But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Saddam Hussein

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2014, 06:42:19 PM »
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.

Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically?  Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2014, 09:41:55 PM »
I don't see what's wrong with the Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia works by user contribution. I saw on the talk page it was argued that many of the notable members have moved here. Therefore this is now the Flat Earth Society. I see the change to the page as a simple update of fact.

As per "they're copycats stealing content" argument, I don't consider that as valid considering that I wrote a majority of the material in the original Wiki, and now I'm here.

If Daniel and his team feels that they are the 'true' Flat Earth Society, then maybe they should argue based on their notability with something other than "we posted links to some books written by previous Flat Earth Societies" and "Tom Bishop stole the wiki he wrote". They can make their case by talking about the few Flat Earth podcast episodes they did which had nothing to do with the topic of Flat Earth. Or perhaps they can talk about their engaging Flat Earth community activities, such as the annual "save the animals" charity drive panhandling.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 09:44:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

Saddam Hussein

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2014, 09:43:33 PM »
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.

Ghost of V

Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2014, 09:44:35 PM »
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.

Indeed. I was just about to post something along these lines.



Was that a confession, Tom Bishop?

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2014, 09:49:33 PM »
Tom is taking his gloves off.  I am glad he is feeling better.  Go Tom.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2014, 09:56:35 PM »
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.

Indeed. I was just about to post something along these lines.

Was that a confession, Tom Bishop?

I did not change the page, but wouldn't have objected to it.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 12:06:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Wilmore

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Vice President
    • View Profile
    • The Hibernian Zetetic
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #77 on: July 19, 2014, 02:27:42 AM »
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.

Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically?  Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.


Parsifal was once a mod, and it didn't go well. Following that, there were/are suspicions regarding the numerous attacks on the site. This is all pretty much public knowledge I think. This is what I mean when I talk about trust. I do think it is something that can be addressed, however.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #78 on: July 19, 2014, 02:28:36 AM »
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.

Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically?  Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.


Parsifal was once a mod, and it didn't go well. Following that, there were/are suspicions regarding the numerous attacks on the site. This is all pretty much public knowledge I think. This is what I mean when I talk about trust. I do think it is something that can be addressed, however.

If Parsifal hacks other people's forums, would he hack his own forum?  Especially if he had to fix it?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Wilmore

  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Vice President
    • View Profile
    • The Hibernian Zetetic
Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« Reply #79 on: July 19, 2014, 02:42:33 AM »
Like I said, this is something that can be talked about and dealt with, I think. I like and trust Steve (and believe it or not, pp, though the next part of this sentence doesn't apply to him because of well-known drama), and I've been trying to get him involved in the running of things for a long time. But at the end of the day, there are trust issues there for Daniel, and they aren't groundless.


Now, pp has mentioned that there are security roundabouts that can remove those trust issues, and think they're a really good idea, but I would agree with him that those are not a replacement for trust. I think what he means is (and I entirely agree), we can get by without trust, but it would be much better if there were trust. For everyone, and for the long-term good of the society.


In any event, I've talked with pizaaplanet and Steve, and they want to sound out you guys on this, so I'll leave it there.


Edited to remove personal information at user request - Parsifal
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 03:14:33 PM by Parsifal »
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord