patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, it promotes intellectual laziness and faith, much like religion, and does not tolerate challenges to its bullshit. That makes Wikipedia dangerous.

What are you talking about? They've addressed every challenge put out there in a professional manner. What I'm sure they don't like are helpful suggestions like, "Fuck off you Nazi bastard, this is notable and you're just oppressing my right to free speech." That's not particularly constructive. However, when you have a substantive challenge to a comment, they seem more than willing to consider what you are saying. A couple have revised their first reactions to the submission. Just because they aren't rolling over and playing dead, doesn't mean that they are intolerant to challenges. As for laziness and faith... The fact that they are taking the time to come out here and look at Patrick.net for themselves would seem to indicate an inclination to "find out for themselves" rather than follow this supposed "blind faith" that nothing could be different from what they first thought.

We get that you don't like the product. Fine. Point taken. What's your goal here? Do you just need a soapbox or are you trying to change Patrick's mind about submitting to Wikipedia, altogether?

Dan8267

Furthermore, it promotes intellectual laziness and faith, much like religion, and does not tolerate challenges to its bullshit. That makes Wikipedia dangerous

I expect Stalin and Mao would have agreed whole heartedly.

turtledove says

Oh Dan, calm down.

I am calm. Just because I strongly oppose something and take a firm stand does not mean I'm being hysterical. My arguments against Wikipedia are quite rational and objective.

turtledove says

If you hate it so much, no one has a gun to your head forcing you to visit Wikipedia.

True, and no one is forcing anyone to vote for Trump or Hillary, but we are all effected by which one is elected.

I don't object to Wikipedia on the basis that its propaganda and misinformation fools me. I object to Wikipedia on the basis that its propaganda and misinformation fools many other people and then those other people have a great negative effect on our society. That's the same exact objection I have against both religion and junk science in the courtroom. Surely you would not take the stance that using junk science in criminal trials is tolerable? People have been executed for crimes they did not commit in our country because of junk science. It's not hysteria to take a firm stance against such wrongs.

turtledove says

A talented, if not mischievous one (CIC incident).

All talented programmers are mischievous. I suspect the same holds for other fields as well.

turtledove says

Why don't you create a competing on-line encyclopedia and then you set the rules up any way you see fit?

I have a day job and what free time I have is wasted on PatNet.

There is no need for a single online encyclopedia as Google has solved the problem of indexing the web. Having a single site actually does nothing to address any problems with having multiple and untrustworthy sources of information. Gathering these multiple sources and untrustworthy into a single domain name or web page design does not mitigate any problems with the sources being untrustworthy.

But even if one wanted to create an alternative to Wikipedia, the mere existence of Wikipedia makes such attempts futile. One of the properties of the Internet is that niches that are filled, rightfully or wrongfully, are persistent against competition for the exact same reason that the Internet is so damn useful in the first place. The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.

Let's take an even simpler example. Why not replace Skype? It's trivially easy to create a video chat program. The video part is already done for you and there are controls you can drag-n-drop into your UI builder to use. Yet, it's impossible to replace Skype with an alternative. Why? Well, everyone uses Skype, so there is great motivation for people to use Skype and no motivation for people to use your system since few if any people are already on it. But because there is no motivation for people to switch to your app or network, no one does, and thus there will never be any motivation for people to do so. Skype is popular because it was able to get a user base before the niche was filled.

For the same reason, it's basically impossible to replace Facebook, Adobe Photoshop, or Wikipedia even if you create an obviously superior product or service and everyone agrees it's obviously superior. You could build a social network that everyone says is far better than Facebook and offers far more and is far easier to use, and no one would use it because everyone is on Facebook and not on your network.

However, none of these facts excuse the harm Wikipedia is doing to the world by letting propagandists rewrite history and spread misinformation about countries, wars, government policies, corporate products, etc. The world would be better off if Wikipedia didn't even exist. The information that is on Wikipedia would simply be spread across many sites, and more importantly, the mechanisms that propagandists use to spread misinformation and to silence the correction of this misinformation would not exist and thus propaganda would be less effective and much harder to get away with.

turtledove says

No doubt, you'll find a way to make it work without any review process or standards for submission, whatsoever. I can't see any potential problems with that kind of policy, at all. So, prove it can be done and show the Wiki Establishment a thing or two.

That's not my solution. My solution is the one that's tried and true, the one that already works, the one that is working today right now. The solution is peer reviews. This is what the scientific community does and it is extremely effective at preventing junk science and detecting and correcting misinformation. The scientific method is a self-correcting methodology and the greatest invention of mankind. It just works.

Wikipedia gives the illusion of peer review while producing deceptions that would never pass a peer review in any scientific community. I'd rather see well respected institutions in various fields (science, finance, history, etc.) cooperating in the open using peer reviews and articles who authors are identified with real-world names. When I read a scientific paper, or any academic paper for that matter, I know that the author is putting his or her reputation on the line with every keystroke. I also know the paper has been thoroughly vetted by experts and not by unknown sources with alternative agendas.

And if an organization does engage in any kind of shenanigans, the reputation of the organization suffers. Scientific and academic organizations value their reputation greatly and so they don't engage in bullshit. When was the last time the American Institute of Physics or the European Federation of Geologists put out some bullshit? Never. The risk would be too great. In contrast Wikipedia is effectively a single source rather than dozens of organizations around the world with separate reputations. Thus you have to either accept or reject Wikipedia as a whole. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the reputability of an organization is only as good as the worst scoundrel in it. And there are plenty of scoundrels in Wikipedia. They are the most active users because only people with a fiscal or political power motive would spend the time and resources -- or pay a multitude of others to do so -- necessary to control the information on the most recent version of a Wikipedia article. It is precisely the worst people who have the greatest motivation to dominate Wikipedia.

turtledove says

They've addressed every challenge put out there in a professional manner.

There is nothing the Wikipedia high ranking users can say that will fix a fundamentally flawed system. No words can cause problems to suddenly cease to exist.

The very approach Wikipedia uses is wrong. The peer review process is the correct approach. If Wikipedia adopted the peer review process, it would not be Wikipedia in any form regardless of whether or not it kept the name. In any case, there is no way they would do it as it would destroy the unfortunate appeal of the site.

turtledove says

Fuck off you Nazi bastard, this is notable and you're just oppressing my right to free speech.

Actually I don't think that PatNet is notable. Sorry Patrick. But my objections to Wikipedia have nothing to do with whether or not PatNet is included. That's just utterly insignificant.

I do however object to the incredible amount of deliberate misinformation and censorship that appears on Wikipedia and has since its beginnings.

I was one of the people strongly rooting for Wikipedia when it first came out. I also made many contributions in science, math, and computer science articles. Since no one gives a rat's ass about esoteric math and technology problems, these articles were good. They were written and edited only by nerds with the best intentions and the love of sharing knowledge.

However, add a financial or political motive and the entire system fails quickly and completely. When money and power is on the line, which it ultimately is with any article that remotely touches human experiences like wars, elections, products, companies, laws, treaties, history, historical figures, and just about everything else than articles that appeal to only nerds and academics, then suddenly there are powerful perverse incentives for people and organizations to control the information on Wikipedia. It becomes a propaganda network.

And having a history of the pages does nothing to mitigate this problem because 99.9% of the users are only going to look on the most recent version of the page. And having citations does nothing to mitigate this problem because the citations allowed are also controlled by the propagandists.

When I finally ventured into articles about history or current events I was appalled at how much power organizations with vested interests and malevolent intentions have over what information is allowed in articles. It was the exact opposite of democracy. Now science is not a democracy, but Wikipedia was suppose to be. Instead it had none of the benefits of peer review while also having none of the benefits of democracy. In fact, it was the worst possible set of attributes. The authors with the most power were anonymous and organized.

The best way to describe Wikipedia is as Citizens United for Encyclopedias. Organizations with sizable financial resources can easily have entire teams of employees that use sets of users to perform various badge-earning activities including cleaning up graffiti and writing legitimate articles on sports or other venues they don't care about. And then these user accounts with great reputations can be used by other employees to control information on articles that are of interest to the organization. And since the user accounts had many badges, their say is far greater than anyone else's even though the individual persons behind the accounts aren't necessarily the ones earning the badges.

Furthermore, it is trivially easy for an organization to have many highly ranked accounts that the other Wikipedia users and even the administrators of the site cannot, even in principle, know are really in cahoots. And don't think IP logging is going to make a difference. Sure the occasional amateur at a well-known company might get caught doing this crap, but any serious effort by a major corporation, or worse yet, a determine agency within a government sure as hell isn't going to get caught and has more than enough resources to use fake IP addresses or to cycle IP addresses registered with false information.

The very basis of trust that Wikipedia inherently relies upon is faulty to the core.

turtledove says

We get that you don't like the product. Fine. Point taken. What's your goal here? Do you just need a soapbox or are you trying to change Patrick's mind about submitting to Wikipedia, altogether?

My goal is to inform others about the nefarious evils of Wikipedia so that
1. They won't be fooled by it.
2. They won't act on the misinformation.
3. They won't contribute to the cult of Wikipedia thus further enabling its negative impact on the world.
4. They will inform others of these problems to further erode Wikipedia's ability to be use as a weapon by governments and corporations.

These are pretty good objectives.

As for PatNet getting a Wikipedia page? Who cares. It's not significant.

What is significant is that the next time we go to war based on misinformation, Wikipedia doesn't help bad actors in our government spread that misinformation. Lives are literally at stake.

Dan8267 says

The solution is peer reviews.

I would like to point out that that was tried and failed. Search for Nupedia.

Gestrid says

I would like to point out that that was tried and failed. Search for Nupedia.

Interesting. Seems like they could have put out more articles than they did. How does the New England Journal of Medicine do it? They, too, are pretty big into peer review. It's almost like Nupedia got so caught up in the peer review process that they could never actually finish the job.

We do a lot of publishing at our practice (we're approaching 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals). It's a frustrating process, sometimes. And it's not the influence free process you'd like to believe, either. For example, we do a lot of work regarding hysterectomy-free Essure removals (gyns almost exclusively remove via hysterectomy; there are a handful of laparoscopists in the country who figured out how to do it without removing all the organs). Essure is a contraceptive coil that's causing all kinds of problems, but got pre-market approval from the FDA so they are immune to litigation. It's a long story that will doubtless end in massive litigation at some point.... But we submitted an Essure related article for a journal that got rejected. We looked up the reviewers and one of them was a paid consultant for Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure. We were assigned new reviewers and received an "accepted with changes," but peer review doesn't always mean "pure."

Dan8267 says

You could build a social network that everyone says is far better than Facebook and offers far more and is far easier to use, and no one would use it because everyone is on Facebook and not on your network.

I remember people making this exact argument about Friendster.

Also Myspace.

Gestrid says

Dan8267 says

The solution is peer reviews.

I would like to point out that that was tried and failed. Search for Nupedia.

The peer review process succeeds thousands of times every day and has for the past 150 years. I'll give more weight to the billions of success cases than to the single failure case that doesn't even represent a failure of the peer review process but rather a failed attempt of a nobody trying to form a community when so many other rich ones exist.

SomeGuy says

Dan8267 says

You could build a social network that everyone says is far better than Facebook and offers far more and is far easier to use, and no one would use it because everyone is on Facebook and not on your network.

I remember people making this exact argument about Friendster.

Also Myspace.

The social network niche was not fully occupied then. It is now. A better example would be the failure of Google circles. If Google with all it's power and money cannot replace Facebook, then you can't either.

Examples of success in one environment don't demonstrate plausibility in greatly different environments.

The extent of the occupation of niches most certainly matters in both economic and ecological systems. To ignore this fact is to court bankruptcy or extinction.

A very nontechnical person said a very nontechnical thing the other day, but after thinking about it more, it does sound brilliant.

He asked me, why don't they have consumer boxes,they put web servers and services in a router connected box like the way Ruku and AppleTV boxes work?
I said what do you mean? He said you know if you want a website, you publish to the web server on your router. It could have a Social Networking apps built in, that doesn't have a central hub in the cloud.
But instead your content stays on your router. There is no calling Facebook or Google to take stuff off. You just delete what you don't want from your server services running on your connected services server box.

But the more I thought about it, the more this made just as much sense as having three different streaming boxes connected to your TV does.
You could make it a demilitarized zone on your network and even have a proxy running on the box, all of the internet communication you do locally goes through the box. More than a firewall from you and the internet.

Never any centralized content for hackers to steal millions of users info in one whack. The goal would be this device alone would be tougher to hack than the DNC, VISA or the IRS.
And more secure than Hillary's email server.

With this type of box you would publish your own Wiki page and a new DNS protocol would aggregate all of the boxes links to one cohesive network directory to like articles on your box to other boxes.
You'll never have a site admin telling you what you can and can't say.And it would stop the assault on free speech in its tracks.

Dan8267 says

The peer review process succeeds thousands of times every day

Yes and no. I encounter shocking cases of failure regularly. Both ways - good works which get rejected with subjective arguments, even personal attacks, by the anonymous referees, as well garbage that gets accepted (based on the principle I scratch your back you scratch mine). Such things happen with all journals, especially the very to ones.

You'll be surprised how long a wrong result can continue being cited, even after it is proven to be wrong - by the authors, their friends, clueless scientists , and scientists-turned-managers.

And don't get me started on the system of funding research.

FP says

You'll be surprised how long a wrong result can continue being cited, even after it is proven to be wrong - by the authors, their friends, clueless scientists , and scientists-turned-managers.

As CIC just demonstrated, idiots will always say stupid things and repeat debunked lies. However, the peer review method is not only the best, but the only known way to expose these idiots, lies, and mistakes and to make progress against ignorance. The scientific method is a self-correcting one and the proof is in the pudding. It got us to the moon. It gave us flight. It opened the microscopic world. It doubled the human lifespan.

Can you think of a better system then peer-review? Certainly Wikipedia is not better. It is a mockery of knowledge, transparency, and trustworthiness.

Tenpoundbass says

why don't they have consumer boxes,they put web servers and services in a router connected box like the way Ruku and AppleTV boxes work?

I've thought about this idea before, and it could definitely work, but most people have incoming requests blocked at their home router, so they'd have to change that. And then secondly, most people have far lower upload speeds than download speeds, so these things would not be fast.

But it is basically a good idea. You could even make your phone be your server, but bandwidth would be even lower, and battery life would be a problem because the radio would wake up all the time to service requests.

Dan thinks that even the sources used by Wikipedia are controlled by "propagandists", but his peer review process will apparently be completely immune to outside influence. How so, I wonder.

salazzo says

Dan thinks that even the sources used by Wikipedia are controlled by "propagandists", but his peer review process will apparently be completely immune to outside influence. How so, I wonder.

In peer review systems, cherry picked data is easily exposed and the authors who engage in it have their reputations ruined. Publishing bullshit is the fastest way for a scientist or academic to destroy his career. This does not apply to Wikipedia account holders. Do you really not understand this difference?

Even worse than Wikipedia itself is the Wikipedia reader. The Wikipedia reader is brainwashed into a cult-like allegiance to this dismal site taking any criticism of the site as a personal attack against himself. This is a phenomenon well illustrated in this thread.

Well, it was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net

This definitely lowers Wikipedia's credibility.

I bet they are run by the Zampolit and the content of the site was unacceptable.

https://patrick.net/?p=1295419&c=1321815#comment-1321815

The pages are never really deleted. Gestrid posted a comment on how to change it to draft status. There's a tag that needs to be added the page. If you cannot access the page, you may need to go through an administrator, assuming you're still interested, but the page should still be recoverable. Once it's in draft status, you will have time to continue working on it or submit through Articles of Creation, which will remove the bias they claim is a major issue.

turtledove says

The best way to describe Wikipedia is as Citizens United for Encyclopedias. Organizations with sizable financial resources can easily have entire teams of employees that use sets of users to perform various badge-earning activities including cleaning up graffiti and writing legitimate articles on sports or other venues they don't care about. And then these user accounts with great reputations can be used by other employees to control information on articles that are of interest to the organization. And since the user accounts had many badges, their say is far greater than anyone else's even though the individual persons behind the accounts aren't necessarily the ones earning the badges.

I've actually seen this in action. Somebody edits a lot of articles about marshmellows and polo and green tree frogs, but they are a fanatic about a political issue and all the work they did on non-political things somehow gives them weight on tendentious editing of political pages.

rando says

I bet they are...

human, and reacting to "The Original Bankster" and Fortwhine. Patrick, please don't let anger or disappointment cloud your judgment and mislead you into blaming the wrong villain. Your rebrand as a "free speech" zone, "no matter how offensive," doesn't really fit with your site's earlier notability as an "excellent real estate site." It's as if you decided to bury that site under a pile of manure in hope of seeing what grows: maybe something will, but the manure itself isn't necessarily a notable achievement. "The Original Bankster" wants you dead, and your wife and kids, and most of your readers, and he is a Nazi, and he vandalized your Wikipedia page, yet you give him a platform for his Nazi ideology and stupid pranks. That's poignant, but not necessarily notable. Likewise Fortwhine, the racist and anti-gay "church militant" closet case. Nazis and racists and homophobes who vandalize Wikipedia, and have never given any of their time to building it, don't have much credibility there. Turtledove tried to rescue you, but nobody could patch the hole blown beneath PatNet's waterline by TOB and Fortwhine. I wish Wikipedia had kept the page, because there was a lot of notable history related to real estate, but you seal your fate with the choices you make. If I may suggest, instead of "free speech, no matter how offensive" you might want to consider a better option: critical thinking, no matter how contrarian or unpopular. You do have some very smart people here, of many different opinions, and some seem to revel in criticizing each other, and occasionally they get around to criticizing each other's thinking. We live in an era of too much data and not enough analysis, and I think you might do better if you present the site along those lines, and probably if you ban TOB at the very least.

The problem with Nazi ideology (or church militancy, for that matter) is not so much that it's "offensive", but rather it's a stupid waste of time. History disproved Nazi ideology, as the best and brightest had to flee Germany or die, resulting in Germany's loss. Nazi ideology pretends to strength but is actually weak. Similarly, "church militant" means only vanity, because no omnipotent god can ever need your help; it is equally stupid whether Catholic or Muslim, though it tends recently to be more violent among the Muslims. A platform for stupid, disproved, and fundamentally illogical (but possibly offensive) speech isn't necessarily notable, and it is certainly less useful than a site exposing the deceptions in real estate, politics, etc.

rando says

Well, it was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net

This definitely lowers Wikipedia's credibility.

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net-2 is still available. How long until we run out of integers?

Well, it does say that Patrick himself is notable. Perhaps the solution is to switch gears, submit a page on Patrick himself, and mention the web site as the reason for his notability. All of the admins seemed to agree that Patrick is notable.

curious2 says

Your rebrand as a "free speech" zone, "no matter how offensive," doesn't really fit with your site's earlier notability as an "excellent real estate site." It's as if you decided to bury that site under a pile of manure in hope of seeing what grows: maybe something will, but the manure itself isn't necessarily a notable achievement.

Thanks @curious2 I do appreciate the helpful comment. But it feels like you're asking me to abandon a principle (speech free of nearly all constraints, even free of politeness) in order to get traffic. Maybe I should do that, and maybe there really is no value in letting people simply insult each other online.

Other opinions, anyone? Is it possible to grow a forum where people are completely uncensored?

rando says

Other opinions, anyone?

Well, what about a system where a person can get "abuse" votes by other members? When that person reaches ten in so many hours, or whatever number, he or she is no longer able to post for a day. The only problem I see here would be CIC and Dan rage voting each other off the system using multiple aliases. Why can't you prevent aliases, BTW? It seems silly that one person would have multiple login names. Doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Couldn't it be limited to one per IP and email address, at least? And it wouldn't have to be that the person cannot create a new ID, but the old one would have to be deactivated before a new ID can be created.

turtledove says

The only problem I see here would be CIC and Dan rage voting each other off the system using multiple aliases.

I would do no such thing. I would hack PatNet so that everyone else rage voted CIC off the system. Please, give me proper credit.

turtledove says

Why can't you prevent aliases, BTW? It seems silly that one person would have multiple login names. Couldn't it be limited to one per IP and email address, at least?

He could, but then he couldn't preserve anonymity. There are ways to do both, but they require trust or complete transparency.

A user could have multiple IP addresses using TOR or other means and multiple email addresses. So that doesn't work.

rando says

The ignore system was supposed to chill all that out, but clearly is not working well.

The only good ignore does is keeping trolls out of your own threads. Unfortunately for ignores to work, everyone would have to use them against all the trolls. And even then, the trolls would just create new accounts.

rando says

I'm a little afraid of "abuse" votes, because what some might regard as abuse others would not. Sure, there are clear cases like "Listen, fuckwad..." but then there are cases like "People like you..."

And there will be people who do that. That's why it needs to be a short time limit. Like ten "abuse" votes in an hour or two, at the most. I would think that something would have to be pretty offensive to rack up that many, legitimately (yes Dan, talking to you) in such a short period of time.

Let's say everyone who has made than 100 comments gets 5 abuse votes per hour, and if someone gets 5 all from different users in a day, they and their IP address are banned from making posts or comments on the site for a day.

Is that likely to work in keeping things more civil?

rando says

Let's say everyone who has made than 100 comments gets 5 abuse votes per hour, and if someone gets 5 all from different users in a day, they and their IP address are banned from making posts or comments on the site for a day.

Is that likely to work in keeping things more civil?

Just to clarify... Are you saying 120 abuse votes in 24 hours from 5 different users/hour would trigger the 24-hour ban? That would certainly discourage frivolous banning, as it would take some serious commitment from a group of people working together in order to make it happen. Whereas something truly offensive might be likely to rack up 120 votes within a few hours, depending on how many unique users login in a typical day.

There is only one solution to trolling.

www.youtube.com/embed/vuBWbpTJRqk

turtledove says

Just to clarify... Are you saying 120 abuse votes in 24 hours from 5 different users/hour

No, that's not what I meant. Let's make it all days to be clearer:

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

I feel this forum will pick up, when the PC curse on this country gets lifted on November 9th.

rando says

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

I think I'd be inclined to make that number higher. I feel like there are a few people on this site who could too easily rack up five in an hour. In other words, if I can name five people off the top of my head who'd likely click "abuse" on a set of people I can also name off the top of my head, just out of spite, it might be too easy. So, I think I'd be inclined to make it 10 unique user votes in an hour.

That said, and since I find whiners and tattletales kind of irritating, there might need to be something reciprocal to let people know that the "abuse" click isn't supposed to be frivolous. Maybe I'm over thinking this... But if for every click of the abuse button by a user, that user would accumulate a whiner point. 10 "whiner" points in a day (or a 12 hour time period, or whatever) also results in a temporary ban. That would help to keep people from clicking "abuse" over every discourteous word or opinion they disagree with. And, as much as I think it would be ridiculous that someone would troll someone else to give that person a vote every hour on the hour, a mechanism like this could prevent that. I think most people understand what ABUSE means, but there will be those who think any perceived slight is worthy of a click.

Also, I'm thinking maybe the ban should be for a smaller amount of time. The goal, I think, is to make it inconvenient for people to be disgusting, extremely offensive/nasty, or predatory to others and to allow cooling off periods. So, I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to do... But, maybe the first time you get banned in a day it's for four hours. The second time, it's for 12 hours. The 3rd time, it's for 24 hours. Then it starts over again, as obviously a person wouldn't be able to accumulate abuse votes -- that count -- while they're in timeout. And people can't whine about others when they are in timeout. So for whiners who click abuse every time he/she confuses "colorful" with "abuse," there would be a consequence for that... so make your abuse vote count... and opt for "dislike" instead if you aren't sure.

I'm typing out loud, at this point. Just trying to make it fair and consider users' different thresholds when it comes to perceived abuse. It needs to be useful, but a pain in the butt to abuse.

rando says

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

What's the point of banning for a day? It would do nothing to discourage trolling, and in fact, would give trolls a reason to cooperate with other trolls. Five trolls could easily permaban a person under such a scheme. A single troll with five accounts could do the same. A clever programmer who knows HTTP could automate the process.

rando says

Is that likely to work in keeping things more civil?

I tried to think of an automatic algorithm, based on trollishness (Dislike/Like ratio) and Ignores, but nothing seemed to work automatically. Also, some of the worst Users do get some Likes, mainly from alts or each other.

A better model is your method of dealing with spammers, which does generally work.

A determined Nazi or Church Militant, e.g. TOB or Fortwhine, might evade algorithms. Ultimately, if you want to give a platform to someone who wants you dead, that's your choice. The issue is, by emphasizing "free speech, no matter how offensive", you walk into these situations. You can only have one highest priority. If it is to enable people to say anything, no matter how pointless and stupid, then the home page suffers from the most intolerable abuses, as it would from spammers if you decided to allow that.

I hesitate to say that, because some people have elevated the slogan "free speech" the way others have elevated "multiculturalism," sacrificing all else to the cherished fantasy, no matter what the cost. In reality, America has always had (and must have) the ability to respond to defamation, yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema, cutting off people's heads in the name of Islam, and treason (e.g. advocating the violent overthrow of our government, as Islam says to do). We've had a similar exchange about "hate crimes," where I proved to you that racially motivated crime against a white person can and does get prosecuted as a hate crime, and that mental state has been an element of criminal law since Roman times. As I said at the time, all the convicts currently in prison for murder are there only because they thought about the crime before committing it; otherwise, they would have been convicted of manslaughter. Murder requires "malice aforethought," but that doesn't make murder a "thought crime," nor a speech crime. I am probably swimming uphill (block that metaphor!) when trying to explain the scales of justice to computer programmers who tend to think in binary terms.

You might consider an algorithm to promote certain threads on the home page, which would have the effect of demoting others. Or letting people flag as "miscategorized" posts that belong in a different thread, e.g. a thread for "people flinging crap at each other." Meanwhile, just as Wikipedia suffers from too many editors deleting too much, PatNet suffers from too little editing. It's your forum, with your name on it, so the question is this: what do you want to say today?

I realize the topic in this thread has changed by now, but I'd like to point out that the closer of the deletion discussion (who, by the way, was not involved in any way up until deleting the page and closing the discussion) did say that an article on Patrick himself may be notable enough. Of course, the article would likely mention Patrick.net somewhere, and the page Patrick.net, which was deleted, can be recreated as a redirect to the article on Patrick. I would still recommend going through the Article for Creation process, as well as, from the beginning, declaring any conflict of interest the page you guys have as the page creators/editors with the site and its owner.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Well, it was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net

This definitely lowers Wikipedia's credibility.

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net-2 is still available. How long until we run out of integers?

In order to prevent vandalism (you'd be surprised how much vandalism we get there), pages that look at least nearly identical to a deleted page can actually be speedy deleted (hidden from the public without discussion, most likely with 24 hours or less of it being marked for speedy deletion) because discussion would likely inevitably lead to the same result. As another way to prevent vandalism, accounts and IP addresses that repeatedly recreate pages can actually be blocked for different amounts of timefkr vandalism, depending on the situation and past blocks the user has gotten. If one account gets blocked and another new account does the same thing soon after, they can also get blocked for abusing multiple accounts.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to explain Wikipedia's policies.

Gestrid says

In order to prevent vandalism

One person's vandalism is another person's free speech. Simply labeling material you don't like vandalism doesn't make it so.

Vandalism, by definition, involves the damage or destruction of property. A page on a wiki does not in any way damage or destroy other pages, and therefore cannot be vandalism.

What you are really doing is demonstrating that Wikipedia is not a democracy and is not a repository of all human knowledge. It is a brochure that represents the interests of those in control. And anything they don't like is labeled vandalism and deleted. Don't like evidence that a nation state engaged in torture? Delete it. Don't like evidence that a company's product causes obesity? Delete it. Don't like a quote from a former president that opposed the right of women to vote? Delete it. History be damn when there is money, power, or politics on the line.

This is exactly why Wikipedia is worse than worthless. It's harmful.

Gestrid says

declaring any conflict of interest the page you guys have

Wikipedia suffers from chronic conflicts of interest, including potentially lethal misinformation and disinformation on vital subjects like health and medicine. Some of that results from paid publicists and delusional zealots editing pages, and some of it results from bias in the commercial and government publications that Wikipedia relies on as sources. In contrast, Patrick doesn't pay anyone to write here, and doesn't even get paid for his work running the site. It's conceivable that somebody might be getting paid to shill for something, e.g. Otto for NPVIC, but spammers get deleted. PatNet is privately owned by Patrick, nobody else has any direct stake in it, so somebody from Wikipedia accusing PatNetters of "conflict of interest" is like pointing one finger here and three back at yourself.

The "What I Know Is" (WIKI) function of Wikipedia tends to get washed away by a tsunami of phony commercial and government disinformation, manufacturing consent and too often driving a misguided consensus. It comes down to the difference between facts and truth. The earth is in fact round and does in fact revolve around the sun, but Wikipedia "consensus" would surely have favored the "truth" of geocentrism and maybe even a flat earth for most of human history. In this regard, other WIKIs do have clear avantages, e.g. RationalWiki and WikiIslam. They cover fewer subjects but with often greater objectivity. Whether they have undeclared conflicts or not, they prove what they say, instead of manufacturing "consensus" based on unreliable sources.

curious2 says

A better model is your method of dealing with spammers, which does generally work.

That's rather complicated. See https://github.com/killelea/patrick.net/blob/master/html/accept_post.php#L179

But spam is much simpler than "incivility". A new user from a foreign country posting a link is always considered a spammer, and that works pretty well for me.

How do you measure the tone of a post or comment? What if someone wants to quote it?

curious2 says

America has always had (and must have) the ability to respond to defamation, yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema, cutting off people's heads in the name of Islam, and treason (e.g. advocating the violent overthrow of our government, as Islam says to do).

Woah woah there. You jump from
1. defamation to
2. putting lives in immediate danger to
3. cutting off heads to
4. advocating violence

Those things are not in the same categories and certainly not all applicable to a blog. #1 is already covered by my prohibition on personally identifying information and #4 is covered by my prohibition on threats (now extended to cover incitement to violence).

So for me, the question remains about civility. Is there some way to get people on an anonymous forum to agree to argue in a polite tone without inhibiting the content of what they are trying to say?

Some would argue that it's impolite to even question multiculturalism, for example.