On 3 Jun 2007 at 01:26:28 +0100, "Tony Sidaway"
<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's just get this straight: does anybody claim that these pages are
> necessary to the encyclopedia?
That seems to be the line of argument that people like to use these
days every time they're out to suppress something (userboxes, "attack
site" links, Esperanza, BJAODN, etc.), and can't come up with a good
substantive argument about why it needs to be eliminated regardless
of what anybody else thinks about it. Framing the argument in terms
favorable to your side is a major step towards winning it; those in
favor of eliminating something would generally prefer it to be argued
in terms of "Is there any purpose in having it?", while the other
side would be better with "Is there any purpose in suppressing it?"
--
== 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/
> From: "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp(a)gmail.com>
>
> This is so simple. Read the back of a DVD cover. Read a movie review
> in the paper. Read the blurb of a book. All contain a rough outline of
> the plot. They don't mention:
>
> a) What the outcome of the major plot climax is.
> b) Any secrets that change your understanding of the story, but that
> are only revealed at the end.
> c) The deaths of any major characters that take place late in the
> story.
>
> What's hard to get about that?
>
> Now, I'm not even suggesting that Wikipedia avoid mentioning these.
> But it's so incredibly easy to use spoiler tags judiciously. This
> wilful ignorance to understand is quite annoying.
>
> Example:
>
> ==Plot summary==
> In the story, John marries Susan, but they are separated as he is sent
> to war.<more plot describing his antics in the war, the adventures he
> gets up to etc >
>
> {{spoiler}}
> Ultimately, John's leg is blown off and he returns an amputee, only to
> find that Susan has married his brother.
> {{end-spoiler}}
>
> ==Some other section==
>
> It's not complicated. It's not a slippery slope. Can we drop the
> childish attitude please?
Very well said. Hear, hear!
I have two things to add. First, spoiler warnings are only
appropriate in the case of storylines that are reasonably _current,_
so that there is a reasonable probability that the plot twist is not
already well known. It would be absurd to have
Della sells her hair to buy a watch chain for Jim.
{{spoiler}}
But, meanwhile, unknown to Della, Jim has already sold his watch to
buy jewelled combs for Della's hair!!!!!!
{{end-spoiler}}
Second, if something is so surprising, so current, and would be such
a spoiler that a warning is actually needed, some mechanism for
hiding the text is needed as well. It's just absurd to suppose that
readers who does _not_ want to have the story spoiled will be able to
avoid glancing at perfectly visible text.
IMPORTANT: *Please* do not read any further in this posting. Really.
I mean it. I'm absolutely serious. Look, I'm even putting some
"spoiler space" here, like they do in alt.puzzle. Just stop here.
Please.
Snape kills Dumbledore.
Can anyone give me a 1-sentence description of the net outcome of the
recent spoiler war? I notice that wp:spoiler now refers to the need
for a "compelling reason" for the inclusion of a spoiler, which is a
much better, more nuanced position than many real and strawman
arguments I heard from both sides (ie, "no spoilers ever" and
"spoilers everywhere"). But I'm not sure what the actual policy was
before, so could someone enlighten me?
Steve
Someone wrote:
>Not only has he gone around vandalising BJAODN, he's also been
>deleting comments off talk pages, which is utterly reprehensible.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Othe…
>
>Can we reel in this rogue admin now, before he does any more damage?
Firstly, its spelled "rouge." Secondly, my first name is "Jeffrey."
To the point of your hyperbolic complaint, please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking ... "Sites that
violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations
should not be linked."
'Nuff said.
Jeffrey O. Gustafson
_________________________________________________________________
Dont miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/
Users here complain about the cruft being every pokeman card having
its own page, but there's a lot of nonencylopediac cruft on Wikipedia,
and things like this deleted page are a major part of it, imo. There
are users who join to create cruft like this, and don't user page also
show up in search engine results? I think Wikipedia is overly lax on
crap pages created by users, what encyclopediac purpose do pages of
this sort serve? They really weren't even that funny, and there's
never been an original one.
KP
I have created an account, on en.wikipedia.org, from
a non-blocked IP. However, I am now using Tor, and almost
all the exit nodes are blocked.
Quoting from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account%3F,
``Shared IP addresses such as school and company networks or
proxy servers are frequently blocked for vandalism which often affects
many innocent editors on the same network. However, registered
users in good standing can request existing blocks on their IP address
be modified to only affect anonymous editors so that they can continue
contributing to Wikipedia. ''
I have looked at the discussion on Tor open proxies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy,
and have several questions:
1. Can the blocking mechanism be set up to disallow anonymous
edits but allow edits from registered users?
2. Would blocking all the Tor exit nodes in the manner above cause
an increase in vandalism?
This policy of blocking edits from Tor exit nodes seems to contradict
several policies on Wikipedia:
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
``Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view,
representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.''
Considering that China blocks access to Wikipedia, and that using
open proxies such as Tor is the only way to circumvent such censorship,
I do not understand how a neutral point of view can be achieved while
excluding the 137 million internet users in China.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
`` "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on
everything that we do.
We must respect this principle as sacred.''
While using Tor, this ``sacred'' principle is violated.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
``Assume good faith''
Good faith is not assumed when blocking Tor exit nodes that have no edits,
vandalism or otherwise, such as 193.224.70.7 .
I would very much like if I could contribute to Wikipedia using Tor.
Please enlighten me on why the policy I described cannot be carried out.
On the main [[Extreme Programming]] list, people often discuss
organizational change and dealing with difficult people is part of that.
This bit, copied with permission, seems pretty appropriate for us, too:
Cory Foy wrote:
> David Carlton wrote:
>
>> In aikido, you lead the mind away by physical means, though these
>> are always as gentle as possible. The idea is not to further upset
>> the person or draw more attention to yourself, as stiff resistance
>> or a punch would do. In fact, skilled aikidoists often disable
>> their attackers without even touching them, which of course is what
>> you want to do with someone who is blaming you.
>>
>
> I have a friend who was in his garage with his wife one day. One of
> their neighbors came screeching up the road in his car, stopped in
> front of their house, and jumped out and began screaming at them,
> obviously extremely upset about something.
>
> My friend and his wife backed up further in the garage, but the man
> continued to approach. My friend then started to look for something to
> defend himself with, just in case, but luckily his training as a
> therapist took over and he disabled the man with the following:
>
> "Would you like a fresh home-baked cookie? We just took them out of
> the oven."
>
> The man stopped and looked at them quizzically, then proceded to turn
> around, get back in his car, and tore off down the road.
Of course, it's even better when they take the cookie.
William
When I saw in my watchlist yesterday that somebody had XfD'd
[[WP:BJAODN]], I honestly thought it was a bad joke until just now, when
I bothered to look at the actual details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense
Turns out that somebody just went and deleted most of it, and the XfD is
just for cleaning up the last bits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#BJAODN_Deleted
Leaving the merits of this particular action aside, I saw more than one
person suggest that our job was to write an encyclopedia, and that
anything else was a waste of time. That troubles me.
Part of what I do for a living is to go around to companies and help
them with software teams that aren't delivering. Actually, more often I
help bosses see how they are getting in the team's way of delivering.
But that doesn't sell as well, so let's keep that our secret.
Anyhow, one of the first things I look for is a shared team sense of
humor. It's not a primary cause of good work, of course, but I think
it's a great quick indicator of various sorts of cultural and process
health. Moreover, time spent on joking around is great for team bonding,
and provides positive and rewarding experiences that help carry people
through difficulty and dark thoughts.
Sure, too much goofing off is no good, and we don't want Wikipedia to be
hijacked by people whose main focus is frivolity. But I think it's a
mistake for people to tell their fellow editors that they are just
wasting time on X when, gosh darn it, we have an encyclopedia to write.
I just don't believe that the common reaction will be to say, "Golly,
then I'll stop doing the thing I was motivated by and come work on the
thing you have declared I should want to do." I expect people will only
get the first half of that, not the second.
William
A couple Final Fantasy fans have left WikiProject Final Fantasy due to our
strict following of fictional policy and notability. A quote from their
private (yet public) attack of our project on one of their talkpages:
"We have a policy [at the Final Fantasy Wikia] against transwikiing, which
used to be it was "strongly discouraged" so that good, original articles could
be written from scratch and we didn't have to look like a bunch of thieves.
But now I'm thinking of prohibiting it entirely just because of the way
Wikipedia articles are written aren't suitable for an indepth Wiki like mine."
Is this even allowed? Wikias are supposed to allow transwikied material in
some manner; it's one of the whole points of Wikia. Especially when we get
those users who are clingy to their contributions (which is partially why these
two users are leaving) and leave when they get merged or deleted and rally
among a Wikia.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.