User:Filll/Wikipedia Review reviewed

I have been confronted over and over by people who are furious about Wikipedia Review having some sort of negative feelings associated with it. I wanted to set my own feelings about this website down clearly.

• I have no problem with anyone who wants to review Wikipedia or point out problems with Wikipedia. Clearly, Wikipedia has plenty of problems and I have been actively involved in discussions to try to improve Wikipedia at User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing and at User:Filll/WP Challenge and several other research projects.

• Of course many respected Wikipedians have decided to go to Wikipedia Review for a variety of reasons, and although it is not something I would do, I understand the desire to read their hidden threads, or to try to engage them in a dialogue or to calm down the craziness that erupts there.

• I have some uncomfortableness with the collection of IP addresses and the uses they purportedly put those IP addresses to.

• I have some uncomfortableness with some of the activities of some of the more extreme members at Wikipedia Review in use of spyware, or in outing anonymous Wikipedians.

• I am somewhat disquieted by the attack threads against certain prominent Wikipedians there, or the vilification of Wikipedians in good standing for really trivial or nonsense reasons.

• I am uncomfortable with the organization of attacks on Wikipedia from Wikipedia Review.

• I am not happy with the threats against Wikipedians from those at Wikipedia Review.

• I have seen people who are very friendly to assorted Wikipedians on Wikipedia spew venom and hatred on Wikipedia Review. This two-faced behavior really takes me aback.

• I have had some people try to tell me that Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review are identical and just two sides of the same coin and mirror images of each other. If so, I want to know where is Wikipedia Review's Encyclopedia? Does Wikipedia Review have a foundation and raise money? Has the founder of Wikipedia Review, Somey, just as many google hits as Jimbo? Has Somey been testifying in front of Congress? I guess I missed that Congressional hearing.

I have noticed a tremendous defensiveness about Wikipedia Review among some Wikipedians. They feel bad that Wikipedia Review has acquired a negative image. Well do you think part of that might be due to some of what goes on at Wikipedia Review? Do you think that some of the discussions there and threats and attacks and unethical behavior, approaching in some cases criminal activity, that finds a haven at Wikipedia Review might not create a negative image? Do you think that the fact that some of the worst trolls and POV pushers and disruptive editors that Wikipedia ever had are regulars at Wikipedia Review might help to create a negative image? Is any of this surprising to you?

If you do not like the fact that it has a negative image, change the things that have given it a negative image. Do not demand angrily that no one think bad of the place while the reasons that people have misgivings about the website are still in place. You can change the site, or leave the site.

I do not demand that everyone else like strawberry-flavored ice cream. You should not demand that everyone else accept Wikipedia Review as an innocuous carefree environment full of misunderstood peaceful productive souls who only want the chance to write wonderful encyclopedia articles. It will not happen. And you can hold your breath until you turn blue in the face and pass out, and it is not going to happen. Get over it.

My understanding of BADSITES

I gather that there is, or was, some sort of policy, or proposal for a policy called BADSITES about what sort of websites Wikipedia could link to. I also gather there was a fairly large and rancorous debate at Wikipedia about BADSITES.

I was not part of this debate. I was not part of any discussions about BADSITES. I do not know when or where the BADSITES discussion took place. I do not know who was involved in the BADSITES discussion. I do not know what sides various parties were on in the BADSITES discussion. I do not know what the arguments were or are about the BADSITES policy. I do not know explicitly what sites were or are considered to fall under the BADSITES policy. I know very little about BADSITES and frankly, I do not care to know very much about BADSITES.

I have some personal beliefs about what sorts of sites that Wikipedia should not link to, which might or might not have anything to do with BADSITES. I do not know since I do not know the BADSITES policy. I think that Wikipedia should probably not link to sites that install malware on people's computers. I think that Wikipedia should be careful about linking to sites that are involved in criminal activity, such as planning terrorist attacks or trading child pornography or planning hacking attacks or trading hacking information. Are these types of sites covered under the BADSITES policy? I have no idea. And I am in no rush to find out if they are or if they are not covered under the BADSITES policy.

Badmouthing and Threats

I have been attacked for making comments about Wikipedia Review. Frankly, I am much more concerned with some of the activities that take place at Wikipedia Review than Wikipedia Review itself. Here are two that give me pause:

• User:Orangemarlin worked very closely with an admin here on several articles in paleontology and they brought these up to FA standards, and had a lot of fun doing so. Later this admin went to Wikipedia Review and joined in a discussion talking about how awful Orangemarlin was and incompetent and made many other negative assertions about Orangemarlin, discussing Orangemarlin's editing of some medical articles.

This was very hurtful. It does not matter whether the discussion took place at Wikipedia Review, or on Wikipedia itself, or on a blog, or another kind of website, or in the newspaper or in a magazine, or on a radio show or a podcast or on television or in a live panel discussion or in email or in the regular mail. It really has nothing to do with where the discussion took place. What matters is that the discussion took place, and someone who had supposedly been Orangemarlin's friend and who had worked closely with him, joined in on an attack on Orangemarlin. Frankly, this was hurtful.

• User:Cla68 made some fairly overt threats against members of the ID Wikiproject on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review. As far as I know, making threats of the form "Do X or I will do Y" are bannable offenses at Wikipedia [1].

Again, it does not matter that part of these threats took place at Wikipedia Review or somewhere else. It does not matter whether the threats took place at Wikipedia Review, or on Wikipedia itself, or on a blog, or another kind of website, or in the newspaper or in a magazine, or on a radio show or a podcast or on television or in a live panel discussion or in email or in the regular mail. It really has nothing to do with where the threats took place. What matters is that the threats were made. And a threat is a threat is a threat. Period.