this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
30 points (96.9% liked)
SneerClub
889 readers
123 users here now
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
Posts or links discussing our very good friends should have "NSFW" ticked (Nice Sneers For Winners).
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from our very good friends.
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881
I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal's research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.
TW emailed me asking if I'd be willing to help with the piece. I declined (I can't see it being any sort of productive use of my time), but I expect he will cobble together something from the extant public records.
I tried to look up this Mr. Gerard's lurid wikipedia past expecting at least a torture dungeon or wiki-cult or something; but all I found were a bunch of people grumpy that they couldn't turn wikipedia articles into cryptocurrency ads.
Booring.
don't forget the ones outraged they can't use the Daily Mail or the Sun as sources
When I was listening to the most recent episode of the Maintenance Phase podcast which was all in on mocking J. Michael Bailey with a special dig at autogynephilia theories, I went to go see if David had any history policing weirdos on Bailey's wikipedia page, as an excuse to bring the episode in for a stubsack link. And he didn't, which means, once again, booring.
ten years ago the wikipedia cranks had compiled lore on me, and some of it had a vague relation to anything that ever happened! Sure can't wait to see what a good faith rationalist researcher comes up with
so now we have confirmation that tracing w. is (a) a petty, vengeful prick and (b) reads this; good. tracing, whoever you are, why don't you focus on some introspection, like consider what causes you to agree with obvious anti-scientific crap (scientific racism, hbd) and why do you prefer the company of fascists (proto, wannabe, true, disguised, and the illinois nazis) to the company of people who don't think genocide can be justified for any reason?
i must point out that i've barely interacted with the guy, if at all, and had previously considered him on the saner end of the rationalists from his reasonably coherent twitter
"wikipediocracy"? fucking seriously?
for all the good and bad bits that wikipedia has (and there are notably many of the latter too), a rulership is definitely not among that list afaik. wtf.
(e: I'm going purely off the domain name there, but holy shit what a name)
literally started by a guy who was banned for trying to set up a business to write wikipedia articles, and the evils of JIMMY WAAAAAAAAALES!!! still fill his spleen
aaaaand then I actually looked at the page. fuck me it's even worse.
@froztbyte @sneerclub Well, if the vast majority of people in a community share a consensus reality and basic principles, you don’t need a formal governance structure to oppress hallucinating sociopaths.