Wikipedia criticism rises from the ashes–sort of

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

As “Wikipedia Sucks Badly And So Do Its Critics” fades into oblivion (and who can even pronounce that name with a straight face, much less in polite company over a glass of beer?) , the criticism movement has splintered even further.

First there is  which unfortunately uses the same provider as the site that got taken down. So you can kinda see the handwriting on the wall with that one.

Then there is which is supposed be some kind of repository of old posts rescued from google cache.  No one posts there of course.


Yup, it’s a drawing of a male pee-pee.

Finally there is which is basically Eric Barbour still hoping for his book, but with increasingly dated material. Barbour’s avatar is a poorly drawn penis, this time on a cracker.  Somehow we doubt that anyone who would use an avatar like this has ever had sex.

So which sites are dying and which sites are alive?   I can answer that.  This humble blog has gotten courtesy links from all three: Wikipediocrazy, Wikipedia Sucks, and the gamergate reddit Wiki In Acton, so I can tell you the kind of traffic driven by each.  The most traffic by far is from “Sucks”, followed by the gamergate reddit, which both were both able to drive about three times as much traffic as Wikipediocrazy.  The gamergate kiddies are not too bright though, they are still trying to figure out what is a RS, so that pretty much leaves Wikipedia Sucks with a clear field.


“Sucks” landing page


The real Peter Tork

Unfortunately, so far Sucks has done nothing but talk about themselves and each other,  Their best effort so far has been to coin the nickname “Tedious Tim” which Carrite seems to think is a compliment.  Meanwhile,  Rogol Domedonfors, who can easily outdo Carrite in the tedious department, has, for the moment at least, found a home at Wikipediocrazy and is busy overshadowing Carrite with his tiresome drivel “insightful analysis backed up by well-dcumented (sic) evidence supporting creative suggestions” ™ [source, ha ha]  Nope I was right the first time, Rogol is even more insufferable than Carrite. Other than that, Sucks has managed to scrape together a quick enemies list.  As yet, the list lacks notations, so the basis of the list is anyone’s guess, but some anti-gamergate names have turned up there, so it looks to be quickly shaping up as a boyz / MAGA clubhouse.


The new face of Wikipedia criticism–is that Kumioko’s old drama llama avatar?

barbour avator.jpgHOT UPDATE: Oooh oooh, Barbour’s avatar is apparently not just a male pee-pee, it is a male pee-pee combined with a poo-poo!!!1!  How edgy is that!!!!1111!!!!


3 thoughts on “Wikipedia criticism rises from the ashes–sort of

  1. Lightbreather

    So basically, there is still no general Wikipedia criticism site well represented by women? Also, do the remaining, “living” sites mostly use locker room language like reddit and Wikipediocracy?


  2. genderdesk

    Kind of early to tell. They are still trying to agree on rules. Of the two, the proboards is the most courteous, and I believe they have some kind of PG-13 rule–you can go through the site if you are that curious–but also they don’t discuss very much, since no one knows why the original site was taken down. It seems to be pretty much the same people on both sites, just that different ones seem to be in charge. They are probably still busy working out technical details as well.


  3. Anonymous

    The new WS and the ProBoards Wikipedia Review are run by entirely different people and have different rules. Though there is an overlap in membership, not all members post on both sites. The ProBoards Wikipedia Review site is not likely to be removed by ProBoards. The moderation there is active. Wiki Review is not a site for archiving saved threads from the original WS forum. Wiki Rev was set up as an alternative if anyone was concerned that the ProBoards Wikipedia Review forum would go down. As it turns out people prefer the software at the ProBoards Wikipedia Review site. Thanks for traffic analysis from the sites.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s