|
|
|
|
|
|
by howenterprisey
554 days ago
|
|
|
Looking past the condescending "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" description and the unfounded assertion that the number of years spent looking at something or a person's age put a ceiling on how informed they can be about it, she does actually discuss the unblockables right there in the middle of the essay, and the cash flow ("Whereas the people who actually make the product? They don't make any money."), and the paid editing ("They are suffering from, uh, a not very ethical PR person going in there."). And she literally says she doesn't trust Wikipedia's information. I don't know what you could be asking for, for an interview with this structure at this level of depth. Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying. Also $3M is a hilarious undercount and shows your own lack of understanding, because what good is some metal without ops, software maintenance, and support services? Might you also count the lawyers who get editors out of jail, or the specialists who handle CSAM so the volunteers don't have to, or does that count as part of the jetset board too? Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that? Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts? Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said. |
|
|
Why look past it? It's an important criticism and helps describe why the interviewee's answers lack depth and wisdom.
>discuss the unblockables
Wikipedia doesn't want to block them, nor do they try. Influence peddlers, NGOs, etc., are the most prolific editors.
>Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.
You're entering a lecture on the role of class-based modalities in Shakespearean scansion and demanding the professor explain the "i before e" rule. If you're not aware of the most fundamental aspects of the discussion then remove yourself from the conversation. Searching "wikipedia editors bullying" will return you tons of resources on this basic fact, including *an article on Wikipedia about that widespread phenomenon,* with examples.
No one is obligated to teach you the absolute basics of the topic or refrain from relying on them in an argument because you're personally uninformed.
>Also $3M is a hilarious undercount
Read the audit
>Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that?
Am I?
>does that count as part of the jetset board too?
Why would they? How is that related?
> Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?
Does she? And?
>Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.
I'd have preferred another article? Okay