How not to run a wiki – by User188


(h/t to larron)

It’s been a long time since I’ve cast my jaundiced eye over the doings of Ed Poor, the senior sysop over at racist bigot Andrew Schlafly’s little hate blog, Conservapedia, with a penchant for really short articles and films about young girls. You also need to remember that this is User188 on Wikipedia, who rose to the level of bureaucrat, before being booted down the ladder for abusing his privileges.

Still, he at Conservapedia he’s found the perfect home to abuse his privileges, not to mention crowing about just how awesome he is. Here’s a few choice cuttings from he talk page:

I’m Uncle Ed from Wikipedia. I’m one of the earliest remaining contributors there. I used to be a Developer and Bureaucrat – but I didn’t scale well with the project.

it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start – gains instant and widespread acceptance.

I have made over 20,000 edits to Conservapedia, although a lot of these are merely quoted /factoidss. (sic)

Well, that last past isn’t a complete lie – Ed is very, very good at creating inane, meaningless, badly formatted one-line “articles”, of which the best still remains the seminal “Two meters”:

Two meters is 6 feet, 6 and 3/4 inches

I wish I was kidding. He goes on to add such gems as:

I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committees…

…senior staff [at Conservapedia] have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

When I read things like this, and take Ed’s actions into account, I find myself wondering just how stupid the man is. Whatever his alleged skills at Wikipedia, does he seriously think he’s doing any good on Conservapedia – especially when he writes articles with the category “Films about football coaches with 11-year-old daughters”? Does he seriously think the goons who strut around CP are in any way tolerant of those who don’t think their way?

The irony with this is that Ed is probably the most intolerant of CP sysops. One needs only look at how he has butchered their maths articles to realise this. Ed has single-handedly removed anybody with some knowledge of the subject, based more on the fact that he doesn’t understand basic maths than anything else. His attitude appears to be “if can’t understand it, it doesn’t belong on Conservapedia.” Sadly, there are a lot of things Ed doesn’t understand and the “encyclopaedia” is poorer (ahem!) for it.

Let’s see what User188 thinks about technical jargon in articles:

I’d like to see articles which use too much jargon in the beginning “quarantined”, i.e., moved out of main article space until someone is able to write an easily understood introduction. I’d even use HTML  “commenting” markup codes to “hide” the abstruse,  incomprehensible parts of articles until the intro is properly written.

I think that would provide an incentive for anyone who is legitimately trying to help our readers learn about the advanced topics. Only someone who is POSING as a helpful writer would object to this, so it’s also a good way to figure out who’s a saboteur.

So yes – if you’re opposed to Ed dumbing down Conservapedia, you must be a saboteur. This coming from the man who adds entries about rimming, bestiality and the sexuality of young girls to a “Christian, conservative, family friendly” encyclopaedia.

Which brings me to CP editor GOPFan2011. Besides being another example of the fact that if you use a rabid right, flag waving, yee-hah! moniker, the “use your real first name and initial” rule doesn’t apply, he’s been quite happily updating all the James Bond movies. And, fair play, doing quite a good job of it too. For example, looking at Casino Royale, there’s an infobox, listing the cast, director, release date, etc, and he writes a bit of a blurb on the film. Admittedly, there’s no plot synopsis there, but as far as CP articles go, it’s not bad.

Unless your name is Ed Poor, of course. Now Ed has strange outbursts like this from time to time, but this is one of his stranger ones:

You’ve got a lot of trivial facts, and even an info box. Please add something about this film that justifies the article’s existence. Or else I’m inclined simply to delete it. What can readers find here, that they can’t see in Wikipedia?

Hang on… so suddenly having an info box is a bad thing? Still, it does sum up Ed’s attitude – if he doesn’t like it, then it gets deleted. Never improved, just deleted. This from a man who’s claimed on several occasions that he’s involved in teaching young children – presumably at some Moonie brainwashing camp. I’m not sure what angle he’s going for – maybe it needs more conservative bias – Bond was a commie basher after all… although all that sleeping around makes him dangerously liberal…

Anyway, clearly Ed knows what he’s talking about, right? I mean, this is User188 we’re talking about – he must have written hundreds of brilliant articles on movies. Maybe I should go and track some down, to show GOPFan just how it’s done.

Oh dear.

I present for your pleasure (or collective eye bleed, as it may be) some of Ed Poor’s finest writing on the movies:

Training Day

Training Day stars Ethan Hawke as a rookie cop assigned to a veteran narcotics cop (Denzel Washington). In his first 24 hours, he faces some hard choices.

(no mention of Washington’s Oscar)

According to Greta

According to Greta is Hillary Duff gone goth, essentially a remake of Georgia Rules, only in this version of a delinquent girl living with an elderly relative it’s her mom’s parents and they both have sense.

She Gets What She Wants

She Gets What She Wants (2005) is a wacky comedy film about a wealthy Texan family whose teenage daughter seeks popularity by agreeing with her mother’s wish to host a French exchange student.

Alive

Alive (2009) is a movie about a junior high school girl’s descent into drug addiction, set within a Korean Christian community. Abandoned by her father and neglected by her alcoholic mother, the girl turns to cocaine, trading her possessions lot by lot for each successive dose. Then she hears the youth pastor preaching on Hebrews 11:6 . . .

Seriously Ed? A fucking cliffhanger in an encyclopaedia?

Facing the Giants

Facing the Giants is a Christian movie showing a high school football coach using faith and determination to overcome fear and despair.

Princess

Princess (2008) is a movie about a young man’s encounter with a beautiful, but reclusive and mysterious young woman who has lived her entire life in an American castle.

However, I thought I’d leave the best until last.

Ed created the article for ‘Never Been Kissed” and probably set a new record, even by his own abysmal standards. The sole entry for the article was to put in a category”Movies about joining a clique”. That’s it – that’s all User188 thought necessary for a first edit. He did, however, see fit to expand it…

Now when faced with this, I find it hard to believe that Ed Poor can be that stupid to think his own crap “gains instant and widespread acceptance” when he spews forth drivel like this – it certainly doesn’t qualify him to speak about the quality of the work of others. Does he think his work is the thing that differentiates Conservapedia from Wikipedia… well… I suppose it does. The fact that Conservapedia allows Ed to write such utter, unadulterated crap speaks volumes about the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia.

But there might be another motive – one brought to my attention by rational colleague, EddyP. It has nothing to do with Ed’s stupidity, or vanity and everything to do with him being a malicious little bugger.

We know that Ed has a mean streak a mile wide – every time he gets smacked down on Wikipedia, he runs off to Conservapedia, where he uses his sysop powers to abuse any hapless editor who crosses his path, in order to relieve his frustrations. Ed is nothing if not passive-aggressive.

Maybe Ed is jealous of GOPFan’s writing; maybe he had a bad day at work; maybe the missus wouldn’t rub him down with Rev Moon’s holy handkerchief – whatever the reason, Ed is sore. And the only way Ed gets to feel better is by tearing down those around him.

Clear evidence that he’s not fit to run a wiki. Now, if we can just get him away from those kids he allegedly teaches…

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Conservapedia, Ed Poor and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How not to run a wiki – by User188

  1. Pi says:

    Ed has been quite for a while now, but it is nice to see him back in his old form of a completely un-self-aware asshole.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      However, that does make Eddy’s point more interesting – surely *nobody* can be that dim, that they take others to task whilst thinking their own drivel is teh awesome? It’s likely that Ed acts like douche – especially after getting on WP – simply because he can – despite all his protestations about how “reasonable” he is. He’s a little bully, and if the editor protests, Ed simply “politely shows him the door.” It’s how he gets his kicks.

  2. Norseman says:

    He keeps leaping between CP and WP whenever someone calls him on his bullshit and censorship.

  3. Kels says:

    The Alive (2009) one makes me laugh. I went so far as to look it up, and eventually found out that it’s a 22-minute indie short with a cast of high schoolers (thus Ed’s interest) on YouTube. No mention of the fact that there are several other, more notable films with the same name, including one in the same year. Awful, awful article writing.

    Of course, this is a guy who takes PRIDE in the fact that he litters wikis with total crap for other people to clean up afterwards.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      I was under the impression (and I’m too lazy to look it up) that “Alive” was the film about the plane crash in the Andes, where they had to eat the dead. But you’re right – awful writing – no mention of cast, crew, or – you know – facts. Just a one-sentence synopsis that he’s probably copied from IMDB.

      • Robbert says:

        Nah, that movie is far older than 2009; mid-90’s would be my guess (since I’m too lazy to look it up as well. :))

      • Kels says:

        Come to think of it, it’s apparently a Korean-American school, so I wonder if there’s a Moonie connection.

        • PsyGremlin says:

          That’s the most probable answer, but he changes his story so many times – he’s taught maths, music, Sunday school, god knows what else. LinkedIn tells me he’s “Webmaster, database administrator and computer programmer” at the Family Federation of New York – which is a Moonie organisation. He’s also supposedly a programmer at ABC TV and a senior programmer at Tufts University… all of which sound a bit strange given his level of incompetence on CP.

          And I seem to remember him being involved with the electric bikes of http://www.nycewheels.com/ – there was a pic of him driving one floating around.

          But that’s a long way of saying, I have no idea what Ed does, but I’d bet good money it involves the Moonies. And children.

  4. WWWWolf says:

    > What can readers find here, that they can’t see in Wikipedia?

    Wait, wasn’t Schlafly’s grand vision, at one point or another, that Conservapedia would be a viable alternative to Wikipedia? You know, in the sense that true conservatives wouldn’t need to grime themselves by consulting the liberal-slanted “encyclopaedia” at all?

    Oh, right, that vision is long gone. And if anyone asks anything about that, here’s the official explanation from a Senior Sysop. They’re not building a general-purpose encyclopaedia – they only present facts you can’t see in Wikipedia! And believe me, Wikipedia doesn’t like this stuff one bit – they want all those “sources” and whatnot.

    • Pi says:

      They have never been clear whether it is supposed to be more complete than Wikipedia, containing both the material and other points of view that are unsupported by reliable sources, whether they are a compendium to it which summerizes all the facts and views, or whether they are complementary to it presenting just the other side. At the moment they look like a parody of Wikipedia if it was written by strawman right-wingers.

Comments are closed.