There are plenty of people who think that Wikipedia should never have any
expressions of political opinions etc., and that userboxes should never be
allowed under any circumstances. There are others that think that all
userboxes should be allowed.
It seems difficult to follow one of these two positions without losing a
significant number of great contributors, so we need to come up with some
sort of compromise solution. This is mainly just a collation of various
suggestions, but I wondered what people think of it as a solution
1. The only userpage templates that are allowed in Template space are those
of direct relevance to the project - e.g. babel, {{userpage}},
{{WikimediaNoLicensing}} etc.
2. Userboxes cannot be 'transcluded' from user subpages - the only allowed
way to have a userbox is to copy the source code for it (this wouldn't
preclude Wikiproject Userboxes from having a list of boxen, all they would
have to do is have a list of code rather than a list of {{user userbox}}
template calls
3. Userboxes are not allowed to use images or categories. In fact all
'Wikipedians by...' categories (except Wikipedians by location and other
categories whose existence is of evident utility to the project) should be
deleted (can we add something to CSD to this effect, assuming there isn't
already?)
1 is fairly obvious - there is concern that having userboxes in the Template
space could give the impression that they are part of Wikipedia proper.
2 and 3 are meant to stop 'vote stuffing' - the other major gripe people
have with boxen. Fair use images in userboxes are already not allowed (since
they aren't fair use at all in boxen), and allowing public domain/FDL
images would give us precisely the same vote-stuffing problems that we
currently have with categories
This would solve most of the complaints people have with userboxes (apart
from the people think that WP:NPOV applies to userpages, which is
objectively wrong) without stopping people from disclosing their particular
biases.
Incidentally, I think this should be accompanied by using a bot to replace
all instances of userboxes with the code (a bot or AWB could do this) so
that people don't end up with their userpage covered in redlinks
Cynical
The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections
should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't
want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the
discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not,
but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us
more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap."
"Well, we agree to disagree.").
But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about
the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have
been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into
an article under WP:NOR?
What I'm basically proposing is perhaps one way to deal with it (that
a draconian, anti-"in popular culture" person like me would be happy
with) would be to restrict such sections or articles to places where
there exists a secondary source literature on the subject.
For example, [[Nuclear weapon in popular culture]] -- not the best
article, admittedly, but there has been ample writing on the subject
by scholars, including general appearance and trends of nuclear
weapons motifs in popular culture, and even specific analysis of the
apperance of nuclear weapons in cinema. Satisifies WP:NOR without any
problem, in the hypothetical (exact contents still probably need some
work).
But [[Space colonization in popular culture]] has no such sources
listed. It is a more common article of this sort, based most likely on
an overgrown "in popular culture" section of an article on space
colonization. Does this constitute "original research" as laid out in
WP:NOR?
Other articles of this sort include [[A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular
culture]], [[Amateur radio in popular culture]], and [[Fullerenes in
popular culture]], to pick a few at random. An article which
*probably* wouldn't be NOR -- though it doesn't have any secondary
sources of the sort I am talking about listed -- would be [[Heroin in
popular culture]], a subject which I imagine people have probably
written about extensively given the amount of literature and film
which have be based on heroin-related topics.
Just a thought I had -- not a crusade in any sense -- that I thought I
would float on here. I understand I'm a bit cranky on this subject, no
doubt due to my personal feeling that an encyclopedia article on the
[[Enola Gay]] should not be forced to referenced the fact that Krusty
the Klown had an airplane called the "I'm-on-a-Rolla'-Gay" in one
episode of "the Simpsons", but I am not trying to be a hard-ass on the
subject, and recognize it is not the most pressing problem.
FF
Greetings:
Let it not be said that justice is undone on the whims of one solitary
man. The Wikipedia user: HerrGoebbles, has been blocked by Wiki Admin
MarkSweep, whose reasons given were dislike of my user name ( because I
am German?) maybe due to MarkSweep claiming to be a former US Marine, he
considers me to be an enemy. The other reason given was harassment of
user TastyCakes, who seems to have a dislike of anyone who disagrees with
her views of the destruction of the American Indian tribes during
American expansion. The user TastyCakes has used the term "Dumb Ass" as
a personal attack and an insult towards me, (maybe because I am German,
and not gentically as superior as TastyCakes?) However, I do not wish to
discuss this at length, I only wish to be given the opportunity to learn
from any mistakes I may have made, and continue to have the ability to
simply use Wikipedia's site without any overzealous attempts by Admins to
silence me once and for all, with malice.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
HerrGoebbles
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
>> Jimbo also deleted one of my stub articles, but it
>> seems that the community overruled against his
>> decission and for so far, decided to keep the article.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfe…
>This is absurd. What an idiotic article.
I wouldn't say that. It's a decent attempt at a stub, with references,
on someone who originated an important idea.
That said, there's barely any 'there' there, so I've redirected it to
[[Wikipedia#History]], which summarises the stub in a single sentence
with a reference.
- d.
On 22 Feb 2006 at 06:40, "Daniel P. B. Smith" <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> 1) It's still free, isn't it?
That word has a number of different senses, some of which apply to
Wikipedia and some that don't. It can be accessed at no charge, but
people using it are not free to do things that its admins and Jimbo
don't allow them to do.
> 2) Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
> an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other
> encyclopedias get by without such an article.
Yes, I wouldn't expect the Encyclopedia of 18th Century French
Revolutionaries to include such an article, nor the Encyclopedia of
Star Wars Planets. An Encyclopedia of Internet Memes, on the other
hand, might well have such an entry. So the question then becomes
just what sort of encyclopedia is Wikipedia.
> 3) Anyone can still edit Wikipedia, can't they?
Other than the people who are banned, anyway.
> 4) If this deletion was made "unilaterally" then who are the twenty
> or so other sysops who also deleted the page? Are they all Jimbo's
> sockpuppets?
They're one side of an edit war, obviously, with those who undeleted
or recreated it on the other side.
Jimbo ended up taking sides in this war, something he's been doing
more often lately, and perhaps necessarily, given the apparent
increasing inability of the community to reach stable consensuses
(consensi?) by itself.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I was the admin who deleted the Brian Peppers article after the first AFD
(then VFD). I have looked at the two versions, both the one I deleted and the
one Jimbo Wales deleted. They are not "substantially identical".
The version which was AFDed back in June was a silly fake newspaper type
report, which was just disgusting. The last version was more neutral, and
looked a bit like an encyclopedia article.
Sorry Jimbo, but I don't agree that deleting it was an in process application
of G4. Nonetheless, it is your prerogative to make such decisions, and I also
agree that we probably should not have an article on the subject. If I had
voted in any of the AFDs it would probably have been to "delete".
Sjakkalle
> From: "Joshua Griisser" <JDGRII8338(a)NGCSU.EDU>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny
>
> I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of
> the encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his
> locking (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]]
> for *five days*.
>
> As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal
> mine. Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
>
> Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's
> personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can
> edit". The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
1) It's still free, isn't it?
2) Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, isn't it? Surely you can have
an encyclopedia without an article on Brian Peppers in it. Many other
encyclopedias get by without such an article.
3) Anyone can still edit Wikipedia, can't they?
4) If this deletion was made "unilaterally" then who are the twenty
or so other sysops who also deleted the page? Are they all Jimbo's
sockpuppets?
I drooled:
>"The two most plentiful elements in the Universe are bad Uncyclopedia
>articles and hydrogen, and I'm not sure about the ... hydrogen. Hold
>on, I'll try that one again." - Albert Einstein on an off day
Er, wtf. Evidently my mailbox was just hit by one. This is notes for
an Uncyclopedia article that I *meant* to email to myself, and sent to
wikien-l by mistake. It's probably time to go home and drink copiously
now.
- d. (buh)
JzG wrote:
>What is the overarching principle here? "Do no harm".
Um, I thought it was "NPOV and encyclopedic." But anyway.
(I wrote most of the current [[WP:LIVING]], fwiw. Basically: "NPOV,
referenced to the hilt, neither hagiography nor hatchet job.")
- d.