[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #350 - 9 msgs

[Daniel Lee Mayer]

> JHK writes
>
> The problem here is that 24 makes assertions that words mean what IT
> says they mean, and often denies that common usage is legitimate.  The
> purpose of any encyclopedia should be to let people know what is
> GENERALLY meant and agreed-upon, and then other views or
> interpretations.

Couldn't agree more. This person has some VERY idiosyncratic definitions for 
obscure terms I have never seen used. Many of his entries seem leftist/Green 
and yet I have many friends that are leftist and/or Green and they are not 
aware of most of 24's terms. In addition, almost everything he/she writes is 
discoherent and at first glance at least, nonsense. 

>....
> JHK:
> I think [Jimbo is] right on one level -- banning is very extreme.  However,
> I think we need to consider whether community standards and etiquette
> play any part.  There have been lots of situations where peer pressure
> has helped to tone down disagreements between Wikipedians -- but even in
> cases where there was clear animosity, I've never seen it get so bad
> that the disputants wouldn't put common goals first (given encouragement
> ;-) ).  With 24, we see a person who denies that there is a community,
> and therefore has no obligation to work within the standards we've set
> for ourselves.  Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the goals of the
> project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be
> writing about.  In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating
> tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
> standpoint.   Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
> people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
> but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.  I'm
> all for peer pressure and heavy editing, but I just don't know if it
> will be effective against someone who considers us all less than his
> peers.
>
> JHK
>
Much of my rant was based on the fact that 24 does not follow community 
standards and etiquette -- even after being made aware of them. 24 is 
willfully defying NPOV, capitalization and pluralization wikipedia standards. 
What is worse, is that this person literaly is able to spew out massive 
amounts of text in very little time. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with 
him/her -- let alone write about what I want to write about.  It wouldn't be 
that terrible if this person simply was making new articles and leaving 
established ones alone.  But 24 is injecting his/her seemingly idiosyncratic 
views into many other articles. 

I am a very patient person who allways tries to give people the benefit of 
the doubt (and have been doing so with 24 up to this point). I have often 
chided other wikipedians for calling a newbie a VANDAL just because they were 
doing what newbies do best -- make honest mistakes or do something bad like 
delete a single article because they do not understand what wikipedia is. 
Almost all of these newbies either begin to understand and learn how to work 
on the 'pedia, or they drop out. 24 is very different and continues to do 
things the way he/she wants to after being introduced to what wikipedia is, 
our NPOV policy, how to best contribute to existing articles and how to best 
create new ones. 

I really hate to say it, but I think it is time to at least consider voting 
24 off the island. Maybe give him/her one more chance to reform.  

maveric149