On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 'Good contributors are always welcome', perhaps. -Matt

geni wrote: Inclusionism/deletionism are dead. The current factions are policy/process. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 23/08/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Of course, because it's our major advertising strap line. - d.

On 24/08/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: So how's the result on de: look to you? (Do you contribute much to de: of late?) Should en: pursue the goal of becoming de:? Please answer with as much detail as you can. - d.

On 24/08/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Please answer with as much detail as you can." C'mon, give us more than your usual one-liners. - d.

On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: I didn't throw it out as a really serious suggestion, but I don't agree with your argument. The disadvantage of the words "anyone can edit" are threefold: 1) It's not completely honest: If you are emotionally handicapped, or otherwise mentally disabled, and cause problems as a result you will ultimately be asked to leave. It's not hard to argue that there are some people who can't edit, at least not for long. This must be the case, because while being inclusive is valuable, it can not override our primary goals. 2) It's too handy an excuse: We frequently get arguments from people who argue that they should be able to do whatever they want (spam, violate NPOV, etc) because they see anyone can edit as a permission to do anything. Changing the words won't stop their bad actions, perhaps, but it will remove this demoralizing exchange that our good editors must suffer. 3) Most importantly, it's a matter of respect. Everyone knows that the world contains a lot of harmful people... and increasingly "anyone can edit" is viewed as in invitation for the worst that humanity has to offer. As I've argued elsewhere, we must show the greatest respect for our own project if we are to expect others to respect it. So while a message saying that we're only interested in good writers will not directly stop bad ones, I believe retiring the words "anyone can edit" will indirectly discourage bad behavior by increasing the overall respectability of the project. I think this thread has been productive... the proposed alternatives are quite interesting.

On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: You proceed to argue that "anyone can edit" is a bad slogan. But I have never argued that it is not; I simply think that "good authors are always welcome" is considerably worse. I've made this point in the thread referenced above, here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049738.html Is there a page on the wiki yet to collect slogan ideas? -- Peace & Love, Erik

On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Anyone can edit" is a poor, reductionist and inaccurate slogan with negative connotations. I don't think that the idea behind "good authors are always welcome" can be expressed in a way that doesn't have the problems that I have enumerated; as long as you're referring to _people_, rather than their contributions, it will always come across as condescending and judgmental. Our slogan should not be engineered as a social filter; it won't work. Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that grows on you ;-) Whatever we end up with should express our desire to build a great knowledge resource on the basis of openness, love and respect. -- Peace & Love, Erik

On 8/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sounds more like a PR attempt to emphasize quality than a captivating slogan expressing a powerful idea. It might be better than "anyone can edit", but it would probably be best to collect ideas on the wiki. Feel free to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Slogans or to post more ideas and I'll collect them there. -- Peace & Love, Erik

On 8/24/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but my interest in this thread is greatly diminished by your apparent effort to step in and take credit for it. If you as so supportive of this idea why was your an initial post a dismissive reference to an older post of yours? In any case, I think the discussion was working just fine prior to you stepping it and directing people.

On 8/24/06, Martin Peeks <martin(a)peeks2.fsworld.co.uk> wrote: Definitely. We are not an exclusive club. We're more like a public gathering, where police throw out the few troublemakers. Steve

On 24/08/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Gee, perhaps reading and thinking modified his views? I don't see that discussion here suddenly stops. A page to collect the results on is useful and hooks the mailing list discussion into on-wiki discussion. Go on, see if you can take his involvement in the thread well rather than badly. - d.

G'day David, Good *edits* are always welcome? <snip/> -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

On 8/25/06, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: It's still too cliquish for my liking. It's very reserved, like "Well, sir, I guess you can come in, but don't disturb the others, ok?" It has a very strong implied negative: "Bad edits are not welcome" which I don't think needs to be stated at this level. I really don't like the tone, I guess. Maybe: "New editors wanted"? - we avoid promising some kind of irrevokable privelege, without any kind of threatening undertone. "Made by people like you"? Or even just a tweak to the current line like "Anyone can have a go" - again, we tone down the implied right of editing: we only promise to let them try once. Steve

On 8/25/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: To most of the English speaking world an "Editor" does something mostly different from what an editor does on Wikipedia. Contributor is the correct word, and is the only description Wikipedians should be using when describing their position with the project to outsiders (the press, for example).

On 25/08/06, Andrew Gray &lt;shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Ooops, hit send too soon. "New contribut(ors|ions) wanted" has the unfortunate effect that - to me, at least - it reads somewhat as though we're only looking for new articles, not for new work on existing ones. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Steve Bennett wrote: Wrong. You can make a house out of bricks, but a pile of bricks does not make a house. You can make knowledge from information, but a pile of information does not make knowledge. What's Jimbo's famous quote? "Imagine a world where the sum of human knowledge was available to everyone in their own language - that's what we're doing"? "Anyone can edit" is misleading. "You could be part of"? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 26 Aug 2006, at 11:48, David Gerard wrote: I think this doesn't reflect the broader aim of WMF which is to make a repository of free information. So how about: Join the Information Revolution

Gregory Maxwell wrote: You're technically correct, and those who deal with the press should keep the distinction in mind. Neverthess getting everyone to adopt the usage may be an exercise in futility. Perhaps a crib sheet of definitions and distinctions for those dealing with the press could be a useful page on Meta. Ec

On 25/08/06, Mark Gallagher &lt;m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au&gt; wrote: "Improvements are..."? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater &lt;sbstreater(a)mac.com&gt; wrote: Ideally we want something that's 110% intuitively obviously brilliant for both. I didn't say it'd be easy ... - d.

On 25/08/06, Stephen Streater &lt;sbstreater(a)mac.com&gt; wrote: Phrase as imperative: "Wikipedia: Turn information into knowledge." Yeah, that's the sort of thing an editor could have stuck on the wall above their monitor. - d.

G'day Stephen, Fair enough. I'm too wrapped up in wiki-world now --- I can't remember if "edits" makes sense to non-Wikipedians anymore! "You're the man now, dog!" Internet "wisdom" will be the death of us all. Wikipedia, also, is not necessarily confined to the Internet. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a website; wiki and hypertext is a tool, not a core principle. It may be a *site* on the *web* using *hypertext*, but ... I like Andrew's idea of "improve", but "Improvements are always welcome" doesn't sound much better than "Good contributions", to me. How does "Please help us improve" sound? -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

G'day Steve, "You contribute. *We* decide." -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

G'day Steve, Seriously now: "Help us help you!" (Or some variant. Inspiration could be drawn from "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" if necessary.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse