On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
Ditto. It seems every time I take a short break for a holiday or exams stuff like this happens. These days I just keep my head down and go with the flow.
John
G'day John,
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
Ditto. It seems every time I take a short break for a holiday or exams stuff like this happens. These days I just keep my head down and go with the flow.
Worl, the solution is obvious, isn't it? Stop taking short breaks (stop going on holidays, don't study for your exams, etc.), and we'll be spared the madness!
To think, after all the Wikipedia soul-searching, it turns out the whole newbies vs admins kerfuffle was caused by John Lee leaving his keyboard!
On 6/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group...
You were going okay until you got to "draconian action". I just don't see how editing talk pages in small increments that make it easier for everybody to edit can be described as "draconian". That's, at most, a minimal bit of good housekeeping.
Tony wrote:
You were going okay until you got to "draconian action". I just don't see how editing talk pages in small increments that make it easier for everybody to edit can be described as "draconian".
Go read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity. Yes, you and I think it's silly and inconsequential, but to them it's very important. So when you delete or alter it, it's a direct personal affront, a slap in the face, the equivalent of an ad hominem argument. They react angrily, and this should come as no surprise.
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
Yes, of course. This isn't something to be encouraged.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
Yes, of course. This isn't something to be encouraged.
Indeed not. But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the Preferences page, and (b) because it's an intensely personal issue, when it comes time to discourage abuses, the way you do it matters.
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the Preferences page, and (b) because it's an intensely personal issue, when it comes time to discourage abuses, the way you do it matters.
I think you have a good point about (a). On (b), I commend discreetly editing the more obstrusive clutter in place as a helpful and pragmatic way of dealing with the problem. It's less intrusive than trying to get someone to change their signature, and has immediately beneficial results.
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed not. But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the Preferences page, and (b) because it's an intensely personal issue, when it comes time to discourage abuses, the way you do it matters.
Would it be possible to limit the length of the signature? There's probably a limit to how offensively creative one can be in 50 characters...
Steve
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed not. But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the Preferences page, and (b) because it's an intensely personal issue, when it comes time to discourage abuses, the way you do it matters.
Would it be possible to limit the length of the signature? There's probably a limit to how offensively creative one can be in 50 characters...
Steve
A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters. Someone want to file a bug request for this?
~maru
On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters. Someone want to file a bug request for this?
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes. --LV
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes.
Ignore the "32" I was using that for counting purposes and forgot to remove it. --LV
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters. Someone want to file a bug request for this?
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes.
I was thinking about this last night, and he came to mind for me, too.
You could use (2x or 3x user name length + some fixed amount), to let people have separate links to User: and User talk: pages, which I find useful.
Hmm. I just checked my signature (standard, off the shelf, unprettified). With 20 chars of username, I get 50 chars total. I definitely want to support a limit that would eventually let me at least put in a talk page link eventually.
Tony (and others) - what length and display mode of page editing gets signatures to the point that they bother you? Past two lines of standard screen size edit window?
I just checked, with my display settings I get about 130 characters width in the window. That would imply reasonable break points at 100-130 chars and 200-260 chars if you go by line length with what I guess typical window widths are.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You could use (2x or 3x user name length + some fixed amount), to let people have separate links to User: and User talk: pages, which I find useful.
Nah. If you really want that, just make the strings %T% and %C% automatically substitute for those links, if necessary. Hard limit on sigs for everyone! Allowing people with longer names twice as many characters in their sigs makes the problem worse, by encouraging longer names. Hard limit on sigs for everyone!
Seriously, my only complaint with silly sigs is trying to wade through them in the wikimarkup. Hard limit on sigs for everyone!
Tony (and others) - what length and display mode of page editing gets signatures to the point that they bother you? Past two lines of standard screen size edit window?
Let's see...[[User Talk:Stevage|]] has 22. I'll be generous. 30 characters.
Steve
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You could use (2x or 3x user name length + some fixed amount), to let
people
have separate links to User: and User talk: pages, which I find useful.
Nah. If you really want that, just make the strings %T% and %C% automatically substitute for those links, if necessary.
I'd buy that for a dollar. Code?
Hard limit on
sigs for everyone! Allowing people with longer names twice as many characters in their sigs makes the problem worse, by encouraging longer names. Hard limit on sigs for everyone!
Seriously, my only complaint with silly sigs is trying to wade through them in the wikimarkup. Hard limit on sigs for everyone!
Tony (and others) - what length and display mode of page editing gets signatures to the point that they bother you? Past two lines of
standard
screen size edit window?
Let's see...[[User Talk:Stevage|]] has 22. I'll be generous. 30 characters.
Some form of the basic template that we use for {{user|Name}} and {{vandal|Name}} might also help. Those templates are extremely compact on pages and yet allow you to pack a bunch of displayed info on pages.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Some form of the basic template that we use for {{user|Name}} and {{vandal|Name}} might also help. Those templates are extremely compact on pages and yet allow you to pack a bunch of displayed info on pages.
Can you elaborate? Transcluding would be a huge performance hit. Substing would put us back where we started. Do we really need all those links? Surely user and talk are enough? No?
Steve
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Some form of the basic template that we use for {{user|Name}} and {{vandal|Name}} might also help. Those templates are extremely compact
on
pages and yet allow you to pack a bunch of displayed info on pages.
Can you elaborate? Transcluding would be a huge performance hit. Substing would put us back where we started. Do we really need all those links? Surely user and talk are enough? No?
Not being even vaguely involved in the server management / performance side of things, how much of a hit are we talking about? How much additional resources do the various admin pages full of {{vandal|}} and {{user|}} impose?
Has anyone got benchmark results on testing?
Computer systems architect work pays most of my bills, and I see where you're coming from, but I always prefer to quantify where possible. If it hasn't been quantified yet, we should test.
In terms of parsing the proposed %T% %C% etc variables, are there other variables being run in-line which would serve as a performance comparison as well, for that approach?
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not being even vaguely involved in the server management / performance side of things, how much of a hit are we talking about? How much additional resources do the various admin pages full of {{vandal|}} and {{user|}} impose?
I'm not either. But that never stops me. The thing about signatures, is they're used on thousands of pages. If every user's signature is transcluded, that's hundreds of thousands of extra transclusions. It would be great if that wasn't a major problem, but I suspect it is.
In terms of parsing the proposed %T% %C% etc variables, are there other variables being run in-line which would serve as a performance comparison as well, for that approach?
I don't understand the question. "Variables being run in-line"?
Steve
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
You could use (2x or 3x user name length + some fixed amount), to let
people
have separate links to User: and User talk: pages, which I find useful.
Nah. If you really want that, just make the strings %T% and %C% automatically substitute for those links, if necessary.
I'd buy that for a dollar. Code?
How about this: {{subst:User:AUserName/sig}}? That little trick would pretty much guarantee that any limit on nicks is useless.
--Oskar
On 6/6/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How about this: {{subst:User:AUserName/sig}}? That little trick would pretty much guarantee that any limit on nicks is useless.
I'm sure the smart people who put hard limits on sigs can prevent transclusion and substing.
Steve
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How about this: {{subst:User:AUserName/sig}}? That little trick would pretty much guarantee that any limit on nicks is useless.
I'm sure the smart people who put hard limits on sigs can prevent transclusion and substing.
Unless you meant that people would stop using ~~~~ and start using some firefox extension to subst in a custom sig. You're quite right, but probably not many will bother.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
How about this: {{subst:User:AUserName/sig}}? That little trick would pretty much guarantee that any limit on nicks is useless.
I'm sure the smart people who put hard limits on sigs can prevent transclusion and substing.
Unless you meant that people would stop using ~~~~ and start using some firefox extension to subst in a custom sig. You're quite right, but probably not many will bother.
Any informative comment that I could make on this matter would violate [[WP:BEANS]]...
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes.
I'm going to assume you meant to add "And obviously Can't sleep, clown will eat me's name is well within the limits of a reasonable length user name, and hence signature". And then I'm going to disagree.
Steve
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters. Someone want to file a bug request for this?
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes. --LV
Just goes to show that the first random number thrown out is invariably wrong...
But nevertheless, surely we can agree that *some* limit is needed?
~maru
On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Just goes to show that the first random number thrown out is invariably wrong...
But nevertheless, surely we can agree that *some* limit is needed?
I think we can all agree that in cases where a signature really does significantly hinder editing, it should be reduced to the point where it doesn't.
I'm not sure we will ever agree on a quantitative way of deciding that. The annoyance is a qualtitative effect, so the inability to put a good number on it won't be helpful.
If you set a hard number, people will just come up with creative ways to be annoying within that number of characters. If we do have any guidelines, better for them to be qualtitative, IMO. It will cause occasional back-and-forth but if people start complaining about individual signatures then it's probably a good indication that it is enough of a nuisance to require some changing.
FF
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think we can all agree that in cases where a signature really does significantly hinder editing, it should be reduced to the point where it doesn't.
I'm not sure we will ever agree on a quantitative way of deciding that. The annoyance is a qualtitative effect, so the inability to put a good number on it won't be helpful.
If you set a hard number, people will just come up with creative ways to be annoying within that number of characters. If we do have any guidelines, better for them to be qualtitative, IMO. It will cause occasional back-and-forth but if people start complaining about individual signatures then it's probably a good indication that it is enough of a nuisance to require some changing.
For me, the annoyance is almost entirely proportional to the number of characters taken up in wikitext, so it's quantitative not qualitative. Set a hard limit of 70 chars and I'll be happyish. 35 and I'll be twice as happy. You don't want to see what would happen if it was 17.5.
The visual effects of colourful signatures are actually mildly benefical to me, if anything.
Steve
On 6/5/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Just goes to show that the first random number thrown out is invariably wrong...
But nevertheless, surely we can agree that *some* limit is needed?
Four lines of 80 characters.
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes.
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|]]
That's considerably shorter.
And of course it's not normally necessary for users to choose ridiculous names.
On 05/06/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|32Can't sleep, clown will eat me]]
I think that's 70 characters including spaces, punctuation and brackets. Just for reference purposes.
[[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|]]
That's considerably shorter.
And of course it's not normally necessary for users to choose ridiculous names.
This prompts a thought.
Most people know of the pipe trick with wikisyntax - typing [[Article name (modifier)]] displays as _Article name (modifier)_; typing it [[Article name (modifier)|]] - ie, with a single | character but no alternate text - is converted into [[Article name (modifier)|Article name]], displaying as _Article name_
How difficult would it be to adapt the wikisyntax such that [[|Namespace:Article name]] or [[Namespace:Article name||]] is converted into [[Namespace:Article name|Article name]]? I've noticed this a few times before, often when linking to Wikipedia policy pages or cats - not quite as useful a shortcut as the pipe trick, but it'd be handy to have.
On 6/6/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most people know of the pipe trick with wikisyntax - typing [[Article name (modifier)]] displays as _Article name (modifier)_; typing it [[Article name (modifier)|]] - ie, with a single | character but no alternate text - is converted into [[Article name (modifier)|Article name]], displaying as _Article name_
How difficult would it be to adapt the wikisyntax such that [[|Namespace:Article name]] or [[Namespace:Article name||]] is converted into [[Namespace:Article name|Article name]]? I've noticed this a few times before, often when linking to Wikipedia policy pages or cats - not quite as useful a shortcut as the pipe trick, but it'd be handy to have.
Um, that's already the case? I don't know how long it's been around, but that definitely works.
Steve
On 05/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
How difficult would it be to adapt the wikisyntax such that [[|Namespace:Article name]] or [[Namespace:Article name||]] is converted into [[Namespace:Article name|Article name]]? I've noticed this a few times before, often when linking to Wikipedia policy pages or cats - not quite as useful a shortcut as the pipe trick, but it'd be handy to have.
Um, that's already the case? I don't know how long it's been around, but that definitely works.
You know, before suggesting things in future, I really ought to *test* them...
Sorry all!
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:10:10 +0100, you wrote:
And of course it's not normally necessary for users to choose ridiculous names.
Careful now. Some of us are deeply attached to our nicks :-)
Guy (JzG)
maru wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to limit the length of the signature? There's probably a limit to how offensively creative one can be in 50 characters...
A good idea. Unless one has an absurdly long name, it should be possible to add one's name, a link to the talk page and contribs, and a little extra something- but no more! - within ~ 50 characters. Someone want to file a bug request for this?
At the same time, or maybe even first, we should change the default, software-supplied sig to automatically include `talk' and `contrib' links -- that way, many of us wouldn't need custom sigs at all.
Steve Summit wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
Yes, of course. This isn't something to be encouraged.
Indeed not. But (a) we "encouraged" it the day we implemented the "Raw signature" checkbox next to the Nickname field on the Preferences page,
This crap was well-entrenched before that. The 'raw signature' mode was added to minimize the damage caused by invalid code being used in hacked-up signatures breaking thousands of pages when bugs in the wiki got fixed.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia, so long as they are also working on the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia survives because editors feel loyalty to it, because they keep coming back, because they invest in it psychologically. This should be encouraged.
It is only at the level when such activities really start to interfere with the activities of others that we should be arrogant enough to step in.
If the sigs interfere with editing, posting, discussing, etc., then we should encourage the users to change them and, if they are a serious disruption (and many people agree to this), perhaps change them forcibly after a few polite times asking them to change them.
Otherwise we should leave well enough alone. The entire userbox debate ended up being a pointless waste of time and human resources. In the end very little positive was accomplished by it. A number of good editors were antagonized on both sides of it. Let's try and actively avoid things like this in the future. It is perhaps even more detrimental to the encyclopedia to argue pointlessly over what end up essentially being aesthetic judgments.
I could care less if someone has a cute signature, as long as it doesn't actually get in the way of my editing. It is not my job to enforce aesthetic judgments.
FF
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity.
Yes, of course. This isn't something to be encouraged. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia
Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia.
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia
Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia.
Playing the devil's advocate a bit...
Why do User pages and space even exist, then?
On 6/6/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Playing the devil's advocate a bit...
Why do User pages and space even exist, then?
Is that a serious question? They exist so that editors can write about personal matters related to their work on the encyclopedia.
For instance you can look at my userspace and you'll see pretty much the kind of thing a Wikipedian does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Ton...
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Playing the devil's advocate a bit...
Why do User pages and space even exist, then?
Is that a serious question?
Yes, of course.
They exist so that editors can write
about personal matters related to their work on the encyclopedia.
Here we come to what's obviously an unresolved dynamic tension in WP:USER. -- "Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working."
"Some people add a little information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to emulate this."
[...]
"You might want to add quotes that you like, or a picture, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images (free licensed only, see the #What can I not have on my user page?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3Fsection below), or something like that. Also, someone may choose to award you a barnstar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barnstar.png. In the event that your editing privileges on Wikipedia are revoked, a notice of this may be placed on your user page." --
To summarize, "This is for Wikipedia work, not personal stuff... but some personal stuff is OK." Exactly the sort of ambiguity which lets everyone get in maximum amounts of trouble by misinterpreting it in their favor.
You (Tony) emphasize the WP work aspect. Other people take the other information aspects at its word... and some go overboard.
On 6/6/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To summarize, "This is for Wikipedia work, not personal stuff... but some personal stuff is OK." Exactly the sort of ambiguity which lets everyone get in maximum amounts of trouble by misinterpreting it in their favor.
You (Tony) emphasize the WP work aspect. Other people take the other information aspects at its word... and some go overboard.
What nonsense. There is personal stuff. To remind you, you falsely claimed that "People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia" and I said:
"Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia."
"Some personal stuff is okay" is not the same as "People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia". Rather the reverse, I should say.
On 6/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To remind you, you falsely claimed that "People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia"
That's wrong. Fastfission said that.
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia
Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it. Developing a sense of personal identity makes people feel comfortable, feel welcome, and feel invested. As long as said sense of personal identity does not get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, I see absolutely no reason to try and quash it. So far most of the attempts to cut out "social" aspects seem to have done more harm than good, in my mind.
I've never seen any plausible evidence that things like userboxes actually get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, except in the sense that trying to eliminate them takes months and creates all sorts of awful falling-outs.
FF
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it. Developing a sense of personal identity makes people feel comfortable, feel welcome, and feel invested. As long as said sense of personal identity does not get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, I see absolutely no reason to try and quash it. So far most of the attempts to cut out "social" aspects seem to have done more harm than good, in my mind.
I've never seen any plausible evidence that things like userboxes actually get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, except in the sense that trying to eliminate them takes months and creates all sorts of awful falling-outs.
It probably comes down to this: 1. Users work mostly on the encyclopaedia, and spend some time socialising 2. The social aspect attracts more users, who spend time in equal measure, creating pretty userboxes and expressing their political beliefs 3. This attracts more social users, who spend most of their time on purely social functions and creating noise ...
Eventually you have to draw a line. For serious contributors to have a bit of social fluff about them is fine. Having people whose primary presence at Wikipedia is social, rather than encyclopaedical does eventually get in the way of building an encyclopaedia, through pure noise.
Steve
On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it. Developing a sense of personal identity makes people feel comfortable, feel welcome, and feel invested. As long as said sense of personal identity does not get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, I see absolutely no reason to try and quash it. So far most of the attempts to cut out "social" aspects seem to have done more harm than good, in my mind.
I've never seen any plausible evidence that things like userboxes actually get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, except in the sense that trying to eliminate them takes months and creates all sorts of awful falling-outs.
It probably comes down to this:
- Users work mostly on the encyclopaedia, and spend some time socialising
- The social aspect attracts more users, who spend time in equal
measure, creating pretty userboxes and expressing their political beliefs 3. This attracts more social users, who spend most of their time on purely social functions and creating noise ...
Eventually you have to draw a line. For serious contributors to have a bit of social fluff about them is fine. Having people whose primary presence at Wikipedia is social, rather than encyclopaedical does eventually get in the way of building an encyclopaedia, through pure noise.
Social activity on Wikipedia is more than just "socializing", in my experience. I spent most of my day-to-day time on Wikipedia either reverting vandalism or explaining to people why certain edits are better than others. A quick look at my own contributions shows that out of the last 50 edits, around 80% were to talk namespaces.
Part of this involved fostering creative collaborations with others, getting others on-board with ideas, answering questions, etc. In the end all of this does have an effect on article content, but not necessarily a direct one.
Wikipedia content is decided by a lot of back-and-forth between users. Any time you have lots of communication, disagreement, contestation, etc. between human beings you need a lot of social lubricant. You need ways to identify others, you need things to put around your head that says, "I know about this, I define myself as this, I am a real person and not just some name on a screen, and you should treat me that way."
I've nothing against that at all. I don't see any great reason to try and root it out. If there are a few freeloaders who are just in it for "social" reasons, so be it. As long as they aren't using their userspace for anything directly nefarious, then who cares? My time -- and I assume the time of others -- is better served continuing my own business than it is getting into the business of others.
There are always limits to this, of course. There are definite mis-uses of Wikipedia resources and I think most people would be able to spot them pretty quickly. Copyright infringement on user pages, for example, is a pretty straightforward case.
I'm admittedly non-interventionist here. I think it is easier and more pragmatic tolerate mild misuse and annoyance than to waste time trying to make everyone into ideal Wikipedians. As they say, if it ain't (really) broke, don't fix it.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it. Developing a sense of personal identity makes people feel comfortable, feel welcome, and feel invested. As long as said sense of personal identity does not get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, I see absolutely no reason to try and quash it. So far most of the attempts to cut out "social" aspects seem to have done more harm than good, in my mind.
I've never seen any plausible evidence that things like userboxes actually get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, except in the sense that trying to eliminate them takes months and creates all sorts of awful falling-outs.
It probably comes down to this:
- Users work mostly on the encyclopaedia, and spend some time socialising
- The social aspect attracts more users, who spend time in equal
measure, creating pretty userboxes and expressing their political beliefs 3. This attracts more social users, who spend most of their time on purely social functions and creating noise ...
Eventually you have to draw a line. For serious contributors to have a bit of social fluff about them is fine. Having people whose primary presence at Wikipedia is social, rather than encyclopaedical does eventually get in the way of building an encyclopaedia, through pure noise.
Social activity on Wikipedia is more than just "socializing", in my experience. I spent most of my day-to-day time on Wikipedia either reverting vandalism or explaining to people why certain edits are better than others. A quick look at my own contributions shows that out of the last 50 edits, around 80% were to talk namespaces.
Part of this involved fostering creative collaborations with others, getting others on-board with ideas, answering questions, etc. In the end all of this does have an effect on article content, but not necessarily a direct one.
Wikipedia content is decided by a lot of back-and-forth between users. Any time you have lots of communication, disagreement, contestation, etc. between human beings you need a lot of social lubricant. You need ways to identify others, you need things to put around your head that says, "I know about this, I define myself as this, I am a real person and not just some name on a screen, and you should treat me that way."
I've nothing against that at all. I don't see any great reason to try and root it out. If there are a few freeloaders who are just in it for "social" reasons, so be it. As long as they aren't using their userspace for anything directly nefarious, then who cares? My time -- and I assume the time of others -- is better served continuing my own business than it is getting into the business of others.
There are always limits to this, of course. There are definite mis-uses of Wikipedia resources and I think most people would be able to spot them pretty quickly. Copyright infringement on user pages, for example, is a pretty straightforward case.
I'm admittedly non-interventionist here. I think it is easier and more pragmatic tolerate mild misuse and annoyance than to waste time trying to make everyone into ideal Wikipedians. As they say, if it ain't (really) broke, don't fix it.
FF
People who are here to use Wikipedia as a social gathering place do not belong here. The community is a means to the construction of the encyclopaedia, not the other way round.
John
On 6/8/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
People who are here to use Wikipedia as a social gathering place do not belong here. The community is a means to the construction of the encyclopaedia, not the other way round.
I suspect that the problem lies with us. We are failing to say "go away, we're not interested" to those who want to abuse Wikipedia to conduct their social experiments.
On 6/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect that the problem lies with us. We are failing to say "go away, we're not interested" to those who want to abuse Wikipedia to conduct their social experiments.
Watching this interchange, I was wondering exactly how valid the claim was that (for example) the signature refactoring complaintants were "social Wikipedians" who might fall under the "go away" clause. On the basis that data is better than assertion, I went out and used Interiot's tool to get stats on the seven accounts listed in the original RfC complaint.
Distribution, by percent mainspace edits: (total/%(main+main talk) -------- 4512/52% 7474/51% 3335/50% 1603/50% 303/23% 6790/22% 7447/6%
So we have four solid, high count productive contributors, a newbie, a borderline case with high volume posts (the complaintant), and one user who is, fairly, using it socially (6%? 7000+ edits? Wow, that suprised me).
I'm not going to dump all the source details to the list, but if you're curious, User:Georgewilliamherbert/temp_rfccounts
On 6/8/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Watching this interchange, I was wondering exactly how valid the claim was that (for example) the signature refactoring complaintants were "social Wikipedians" who might fall under the "go away" clause.
That's a straw man. The problem is not one of people but of a class of behavior.
On 6/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Watching this interchange, I was wondering exactly how valid the claim was that (for example) the signature refactoring complaintants were "social Wikipedians" who might fall under the "go away" clause.
That's a straw man. The problem is not one of people but of a class of behavior.
And, of what are appropriate responses to that class of behavior.
The straw man argument you were floating seems to have been, that everyone doing this type of behavior should be told to go away.
My response is, now that we have some data, are you sure that you want to drive away a bunch of multi-thousand edit, apparently positive contributors for every actual problem child case you actually get in the signature cleanup effort?
Jimbo asks earlier whether we're really driving away good editors, as a data point he'd like to see. My point here is that your attitude, that everyone displaying some of these problem symptoms should go away, would result in driving away over 50% good editors.
The class of behavior is made up of individual people. If you're really sure that you want to drive away all those individual people, even if most of them are apparently strong contributors, then I object and see a problem.
The solution has to be behavior modification, not exile, for the vast majority of these "problems".
Whether some people who are predominantly just doing social stuff should be encouraged out the door or not if behavior modification fails is a different issue. But that's 1/7 of the first set of people you were refactoring sigs on.
On 6/8/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The straw man argument you were floating seems to have been, that everyone doing this type of behavior should be told to go away.
My response is, now that we have some data, are you sure that you want to drive away a bunch of multi-thousand edit, apparently positive contributors for every actual problem child case you actually get in the signature cleanup effort?
Jimbo asks earlier whether we're really driving away good editors, as a data point he'd like to see. My point here is that your attitude, that everyone displaying some of these problem symptoms should go away, would result in driving away over 50% good editors.
The class of behavior is made up of individual people. If you're really sure that you want to drive away all those individual people, even if most of them are apparently strong contributors, then I object and see a problem.
The solution has to be behavior modification, not exile, for the vast majority of these "problems".
Whether some people who are predominantly just doing social stuff should be encouraged out the door or not if behavior modification fails is a different issue. But that's 1/7 of the first set of people you were refactoring sigs on.
Wow... most words I think I've seen put in someone else's mouth in quite some time. Reread Tony's argument. --LV
On 6/8/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
4512/52%
Keep.
7474/51%
Keep.
3335/50%
Keep.
1603/50%
Keep.
303/23%
Keep, with guidance.
6790/22%
Keep.
7447/6%
More info needed. Depends what the other 7000 edits were, and whether the 400 were all Pokémon related.
Steve
On 6/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
7447/6%
More info needed. Depends what the other 7000 edits were, and whether the 400 were all Pokémon related.
Well, it's User:Nathanrdotcom, and on further investigation I think he's a special case. I hadn't dived his contributions during assembling the list.
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Social activity on Wikipedia is more than just "socializing", in my experience. I spent most of my day-to-day time on Wikipedia either reverting vandalism or explaining to people why certain edits are better than others. A quick look at my own contributions shows that out of the last 50 edits, around 80% were to talk namespaces.
I'm very hesitant to apply basic statistics to trying to work out what sort of editor someone is. Someone with a very low absolute number of article edits (eg, <200), though, is worth a question mark if they have a high absolute number of talkspace edits.
Part of this involved fostering creative collaborations with others, getting others on-board with ideas, answering questions, etc. In the end all of this does have an effect on article content, but not necessarily a direct one.
Definitely.
Wikipedia content is decided by a lot of back-and-forth between users. Any time you have lots of communication, disagreement, contestation, etc. between human beings you need a lot of social lubricant. You need ways to identify others, you need things to put around your head that says, "I know about this, I define myself as this, I am a real person and not just some name on a screen, and you should treat me that way."
Fwiw, I don't really do that. I tend to just get on the job and be nice to people because it gets the job done better. I can only think of about three or four people that I've made any effort to consider "the person behind the screen", and one wasn't by choice! The others are basically photographers - I was curious what sort of people make the effort to take photos for WP.
So, social lubricant in the "be nice to people" way, yes. In the "what's your name, neigbour", not necessarily (for me).
I've nothing against that at all. I don't see any great reason to try and root it out. If there are a few freeloaders who are just in it for "social" reasons, so be it. As long as they aren't using their userspace for anything directly nefarious, then who cares? My time -- and I assume the time of others -- is better served continuing my own business than it is getting into the business of others.
The main complaints are against people who just enjoy arguing, and they get good value for money here.
I'm admittedly non-interventionist here. I think it is easier and more pragmatic tolerate mild misuse and annoyance than to waste time trying to make everyone into ideal Wikipedians. As they say, if it ain't (really) broke, don't fix it.
There are ways of shaping a community to get more of the people you want, and less of those you don't. Ease of access is a classic one - make it complicated to get in, you end up with smart people. Define firm but complicated rules, you'll get rules lawers and game players. Promise everyone that their opinions are equally valid - you'll get frustrated academics. (for example)
Steve
Fastfission wrote:
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia
Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it. Developing a sense of personal identity makes people feel comfortable, feel welcome, and feel invested. As long as said sense of personal identity does not get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, I see absolutely no reason to try and quash it. So far most of the attempts to cut out "social" aspects seem to have done more harm than good, in my mind.
I've never seen any plausible evidence that things like userboxes actually get in the way of the goal of making an encyclopedia, except in the sense that trying to eliminate them takes months and creates all sorts of awful falling-outs.
FF
That is the reason why I am apathetic about userboxes (I couldn't care less whether they stay or go). Complex signatures complicate discussions, however, and as a result have a very direct effect on the encyclopaedia. If our editors can't communicate, or can only communicate inconveniently, then the encyclopaedia will inevitably suffer.
John
On 6/8/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
That is the reason why I am apathetic about userboxes (I couldn't care less whether they stay or go). Complex signatures complicate discussions, however, and as a result have a very direct effect on the encyclopaedia. If our editors can't communicate, or can only communicate inconveniently, then the encyclopaedia will inevitably suffer.
I'm happy to agree with that in principle, but I'm not sure we need a complicated policy to sort that one out. If a signature is legitimately fouling up editing (and it is not just a case of annoyance or aesthetics), we should contact the user in question, explain what is wrong with it, and ask them to scale it down a bit. I find it hard to see where this is different than any other user habits (i.e. if a user had a 6,000 pixel wide long image on their userpage), and am suspicious that most of the arguments about it I've seen here are based on relatively petty grievances, if not a total disdain for anything which looks "personal".
FF
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy to agree with that in principle, but I'm not sure we need a complicated policy to sort that one out. If a signature is legitimately fouling up editing (and it is not just a case of annoyance or aesthetics), we should contact the user in question, explain what is wrong with it, and ask them to scale it down a bit. I find it hard to see where this is different than any other user habits
I think in a nutshell, Wikipedia is reaching that point where we could ask them, and they might just say "no, ask my friends, they all say it's ok". We probably don't have that single cohesive community where everyone shares the same ideals and standards of behaviour, at least amongst casual editors.
Steve
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
People should be allowed and encourage to develop their personal identity on Wikipedia
Why? Wikipedia isn't a web host, a blog or a social networking site. Those who are looking for such sites will find that there are plenty of those around. There is only one Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it.
If they want *us* to spend a ridiculous amount of time discerning the comments on a discussion page from the clutter of their signatures, I think they'll be very disappointed with Wikipedia. But you know what? That's okay. They can go somewhere else to play silly buggers.
On 6/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a project that thrives only because people want to spend a ridiculous amount of their time on it.
If they want *us* to spend a ridiculous amount of time discerning the comments on a discussion page from the clutter of their signatures, I think they'll be very disappointed with Wikipedia. But you know what? That's okay. They can go somewhere else to play silly buggers.
Gosh, Tony, I didn't realize you had such a hard trouble reading discussion pages, what with all of those colors and fonts! Maybe there is some sort of css hack you could implement which would strip all fancy tricks from the talk pages.
Personally, I've never found it too difficult to read the text itself. Sometimes the names can take me about a millisecond to figure out (thank goodness that mouseover tells me the URL in the status bar!), but since that's usually not a major element of reading a discussion page I wouldn't consider it a "ridiculous amount" of my time. But I understand some people probably have more difficulty than others. I didn't realize it was causing you such a daily inconvenience.
Sarcasm aside, I'm happy with saying that people who are legitimately trying to be disruptive (which is what I assume you mean by "play silly buggers") are told to knock it off, the same we would in any other disruptive situation. But I suspect such people are in the slim minority of those who customize their signatures. And I think that trying to maintain too close a control on the "community", and trying to enforce arbitrary style standards on discussion and user namespaces, is far more disruptive than the phenomena it is trying to control.
I apologize for being so irritable on this (and many other) issues, but I find much of these discussions about various things users should or shouldn't do in an ideal world not very helpful for the production of an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we'd necessarily be terribly different if people spent as much time thinking about how to maintain article stability in a system of open editing as they did userboxes and signatures, but we'd have relatively fewer acrimonious arguments and pointless battles.
FF
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, Tony, I didn't realize you had such a hard trouble reading discussion pages, what with all of those colors and fonts!
Now you know.
Tony Sidaway schrieb:
On 6/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, Tony, I didn't realize you had such a hard trouble reading discussion pages, what with all of those colors and fonts!
Now you know.
And he's not the only one.
greetings, <font color"red">e</font><font color="green">l</font><font color="blue">i</font><font color="yellow">a</font><font color="red">n</font>
Steve Summit wrote:
When you see someone with a big, fancy, "cutesie" signature, it is obvious that (a) they spent a lot of time on it, and (b) it is very personal to them, it is part of their identity. Yes, you and I think it's silly and inconsequential, but to them it's very important. So when you delete or alter it, it's a direct personal affront, a slap in the face, the equivalent of an ad hominem argument. They react angrily, and this should come as no surprise.
So send them off to read WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and in the meantime check out the bit on every edit page about "merciless editing".
Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to be handed a bunch of clues.
If that does not work, a few sharp taps with a cluebat should help, and if they still insist on their "right" to scrawl graffiti across the encyclopedia, then maybe they should take time out to sit on the naughty chair and think about their activities. If it works for naughty children, it should work for them.
Obviously some people are simply not educable in this fashion and will just have to be shown the door.
HTH HAND
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
So send them off to read WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and in the meantime check out the bit on every edit page about "merciless editing".
No you do that first.
Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to be handed a bunch of clues.
So why do people keep complaing about others undoing their blocks and deletions?
geni wrote:
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to be handed a bunch of clues.
So why do people keep complaing about others undoing their blocks and deletions?
Maybe because on the "Block User" and "Delete Page" interfaces there is no rubric which reads: "If you don't want your <del>writing</del> <ins>Block or Deletion</ins> to be </del>edited</del> <ins>reversed</ins> mercilessly or <del>redistributed</del> <ins>disputed</ins> by others, do not submit it."
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
So when you delete or alter it, it's a direct personal affront, a slap in the face, the equivalent of an ad hominem argument. They react angrily, and this should come as no surprise.
So send them off to read WP:OWN and WP:NOT... Anybody who complains about anything they add to Wikipedia just about anywhere other than their own user-page being edited mercilessly needs to be handed a bunch of clues.
If that does not work, a few sharp taps with a cluebat should help, and if they still insist on their "right" to scrawl graffiti across the encyclopedia, then maybe they should take time out to sit on the naughty chair and think about their activities. If it works for naughty children, it should work for them.
Go read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".
Do you handle every aspect of your children's education with cluebats, paddles, and naughty chairs? I pity your children.
On some issues, the advance warning about merciless editing is fine and adequate. On some issues, the retroactive cluebat thwack is fine and adequate. But not for all issues -- sometimes, it's just too, too contrary to people's perfectly reasonable expectations.
The point is that some conflicts -- the interesting ones, really -- can *not* simply be resolved by fiat, by writing down an arbitrary policy somewhere which a given person may or may not have read, and by castigating anyone who has not read or accepted the policy as a child or an idiot.
(It's a lot like the antics of the [[BOFH]], beloved in sysadmin circles and bemoaned by actual users. Come to think of it, the BOFH likes cluebats, too.)
Human nature is what it is and cannot be swept aside or redefined. For some of these conflicts, a more diplomatic approach is necessary, and if we've noticed that the "traditional" solutions haven't worked, and if we still want to resolve them, we might have to take a step back, question some of our assumptions, and try a different approach.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Steve Summit wrote:
Do you handle every aspect of your children's education with cluebats, paddles, and naughty chairs? I pity your children.
Grown adults should know better, and are not as fragile as children. Although I do agree with your basic premise.
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Human nature is what it is and cannot be swept aside or redefined.
This is why the LART was invented.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Human nature is what it is and cannot be swept aside or redefined.
This is why the LART was invented.
But of course, the LART is a just another symptom of the very same problem I'm talking about.
On 6/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
Except that, while there is a rationale for complaining about the userbox issue (campaigning, divisive userboxes, etc), there is no inherent problem with sigs beyond the obvious space usage and that, while it can be annoying, rarely poses a real problem, since sigs belong at the end of paragraphs. It's certainly no more of a problem than is subst:'ing {{unsigned}}
Not only is the software set up to use custom sigs, they are also quite useful. It takes two clicks to get to the talk page of a standard sig like I use, only one with a custom sig. It's also easier to follow conversations long conversations when you can pick out the sigs without reading them (though that may only apply to people who read "whole paragraph"). That said, of course, there's nothing wrong with refactoring sigs on your talk page. Of course, since it's Tony doing it, it looks like WP:POINT, yet again. Once again, the cure seems worse than the disease (from a person with an unformatted sig and only one "vanity" userbox)
Ian
Guettarda wrote:
On 6/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
Except that, while there is a rationale for complaining about the userbox issue (campaigning, divisive userboxes, etc), there is no inherent problem with sigs beyond the obvious space usage and that, while it can be annoying, rarely poses a real problem, since sigs belong at the end of paragraphs. It's certainly no more of a problem than is subst:'ing {{unsigned}}
Not only is the software set up to use custom sigs, they are also quite useful. It takes two clicks to get to the talk page of a standard sig like I use, only one with a custom sig. It's also easier to follow conversations long conversations when you can pick out the sigs without reading them (though that may only apply to people who read "whole paragraph"). That said, of course, there's nothing wrong with refactoring sigs on your talk page. Of course, since it's Tony doing it, it looks like WP:POINT, yet again. Once again, the cure seems worse than the disease (from a person with an unformatted sig and only one "vanity" userbox)
Ian
I think the problem is not so much with custom sigs as with people who use fancy coding. It's irritating, especially when editing in a tight spot with a lot of extraneous HTML code. (Try closing an [[WP:RFD]] and you'll see what I mean.) The best custom sigs (such as mine) get their point across without having to resort to too much HTML. Mine is entirely in wikicode, because all the customisation it has is a link to my talk. This isn't a really big problem, though, IMO. Nevertheless, on one's own talk page, as long as the substance of the comment is unaltered, there shouldn't be anything wrong with altering customisation-heavy sigs.
John
On 6/5/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I think the problem is not so much with custom sigs as with people who use fancy coding. It's irritating, especially when editing in a tight spot with a lot of extraneous HTML code. (Try closing an [[WP:RFD]] and you'll see what I mean.) The best custom sigs (such as mine) get their point across without having to resort to too much HTML. Mine is entirely in wikicode, because all the customisation it has is a link to my talk. This isn't a really big problem, though, IMO. Nevertheless, on one's own talk page, as long as the substance of the comment is unaltered, there shouldn't be anything wrong with altering customisation-heavy sigs.
We should encourage everyone with an outrageous, fancy or creative sig to instead develop an outrageous, fancy or creative userpage (where there really is scope to express one's self), and have their signature as primarily a simple link there, so people are actually able to go and see it.
On 6/5/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
It's also easier to follow conversations long conversations when you can pick out the sigs without reading them
When you're reading a talkpage via a diff, it's a lot harder to pick out the end of a paragraph and figure out who wrote it when the author used a fancy signature with a half-dozen links in it.
On 6/5/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
It's also easier to follow conversations long conversations when you can pick out the sigs without reading them
When you're reading a talkpage via a diff, it's a lot harder to pick out the end of a paragraph and figure out who wrote it when the author used a fancy signature with a half-dozen links in it.
Yep. Here are some good examples: [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
<small>Jun. 5, '06</small><tt> '''[19:23] <<u class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freak]|[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]</u>>'''</tt>
--[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:Celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
--<font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|GeorgeMoney]] <sup>[[User_talk:GeorgeMoney|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/GeorgeMoney|C]]</sup></font> 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
<tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|nen]]<sup>[[User talk:Cuivienen|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cuivienen|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cuivienen|@]]</font></sup></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[30 May]] [[2006]] at 20:54 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
(yes, the comments are actually part of the signature)
[[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 01:19 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-06-04]])</small>
'''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' [[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred"><font size="0.5"> (Talk)</font></font>]] 07:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
--'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''<font color="red">[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]</font>''[[User:Fbv65edel|edel]]'' <sup>([[User_talk:Fbv65edel|discuss]] | [[Special:Contributions/Fbv65edel|contribs]])</sup> 23:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
--<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That should offer some food for thought. And for anyone who made it through all that, puzzle for the day: is [[User:Richard Branson]] for real?
Steve
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|nen]]<sup>[[User talk:Cuivienen|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cuivienen|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cuivienen|@]]</font></sup></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[30 May]] [[2006]] at 20:54 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
Now *that* is what I call "taking the piss".
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
<!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span
style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font
color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|nen]]<sup>[[User
talk:Cuivienen|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cuivienen|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cuivienen|@]]</font></sup></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Tuesday]], [[30 May]] [[2006]] at 20:54 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here-->
Now *that* is what I call "taking the piss".
Ok, I see your point on that one. Wow. LOL
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the ones that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection on Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages and one new pages, you should follow whatever spelling you prefer. But on established pages you should put your own spelling preferences aside and follow the established spelling. Since this is a userbox which attacks one of the most basic compromises that allow the project to function, aren't these the real problem? I couldn't care less if people want to declare what political party they support or their opinion is on fox hunting - but something which says "I don't support the spirit of compromise that Wikipedia depends on"...those userboxes piss me off, even though I have strong feelings on the issue of spelling (I was unhappy that I had to write my dissertation using AE spelling, but I got over it quite quickly).
Ian
On 6/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the ones that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection on Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages and one
Surprisingly, it's actually relevant. You're supposed to respect the preferences of the first contributor to an article. What better way to find out their preferences than checking their user page?
(I'm only being slightly facetious)
Steve
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the
ones
that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection on Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages and
one
Surprisingly, it's actually relevant. You're supposed to respect the preferences of the first contributor to an article. What better way to find out their preferences than checking their user page?
(I'm only being slightly facetious)
Well, I'd say that only holds if they expressed on. If I were to write a stub and use no words that differ between BE and AE, and someone else comes along and writes an article using AE, the "first user preference" is their's, not mine. Anyway, expressing a preference ("prefers BE" or "prefers AE") is fine. Saying that they "contribute" in AE/BE says "I don't want to compromise". If I write an article about an American topic, I should use AE, not matter how much it grates.
On 6/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'd say that only holds if they expressed on. If I were to write a stub and use no words that differ between BE and AE, and someone else comes along and writes an article using AE, the "first user preference" is their's, not mine. Anyway, expressing a preference ("prefers BE" or "prefers AE") is fine. Saying that they "contribute" in AE/BE says "I don't want to compromise". If I write an article about an American topic, I should use AE, not matter how much it grates.
Hmm, all I can say is, if the AE/BE userbox is the most offensive that's left, then let's break out the champagne.
Steve
On 6/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Now, to get onto userboxes that are really disruptive, how about the
ones
that say "This user contributes in American English" or "This user contributes in British English". Isn't this, in essence, a rejection
on
Wikipedia's policy on accepting both AE and BE? Sure, on talk pages
and
one
Surprisingly, it's actually relevant. You're supposed to respect the preferences of the first contributor to an article. What better way to find out their preferences than checking their user page?
(I'm only being slightly facetious)
Well, I'd say that only holds if they expressed on. If I were to write a stub and use no words that differ between BE and AE, and someone else comes along and writes an article using AE, the "first user preference" is their's, not mine. Anyway, expressing a preference ("prefers BE" or "prefers AE") is fine. Saying that they "contribute" in AE/BE says "I don't want to compromise". If I write an article about an American topic, I should use AE, not matter how much it grates.
*sigh* People pursuing BE and AE should see what it's like to be a writer who has to write a certain way because our style guide says so. Our company writes in AE, while I personally dislike AE and prefer to write in BE as much as possible. I write in AE in my company because I'd likely get fired if I didn't.
I'm on a Wiki that uses AE exclusively (the Ultronomicon, a Star Control Wiki) because the Star Control game itself was written in AE, despite the fact that several main contributors, including the "founder" prefer to use BE. Therefore, our contributions to the main articlespace are in AE while most of the talk pages are in BE.
I prefer to to write in BE, but when I see people trying to convert American articles to BE, such as [[Special Activities Division]], it annoys me greatly. Same with British articles to AE (such as [[Harry Potter]]). This also applies to articles that could be written in either AE or BE, but were first written in one form, and people come to convert it over. I wish I could apply a category or template to indicate that the article is written in AE, and please piss off with the BE conversions (and vice versa).
Death Phoenix wrote:
I prefer to to write in BE, but when I see people trying to convert American articles to BE, such as [[Special Activities Division]], it annoys me greatly. Same with British articles to AE (such as [[Harry Potter]]). This also applies to articles that could be written in either AE or BE, but were first written in one form, and people come to convert it over.
Aren't our policies already pretty well settled in telling people not to do either one of those things?
-Mark
On 6/9/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
I prefer to to write in BE, but when I see people trying to convert
American
articles to BE, such as [[Special Activities Division]], it annoys me greatly. Same with British articles to AE (such as [[Harry Potter]]).
This
also applies to articles that could be written in either AE or BE, but
were
first written in one form, and people come to convert it over.
Aren't our policies already pretty well settled in telling people not to do either one of those things?
Yes, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.
On 6/9/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Aren't our policies already pretty well settled in telling people not to do either one of those things?
Our policies are pretty silly: Use whatever makes sense for the topic. If nothing makes sense, use whatever the first major contributor used.
Basically, we actually don't care, but it pisses us off when people change from one to the other for no good reason. However, our policy doesn't actually give us a way to change from one to the other, even if a good reason shows up.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/9/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Aren't our policies already pretty well settled in telling people not to do either one of those things?
Our policies are pretty silly: Use whatever makes sense for the topic. If nothing makes sense, use whatever the first major contributor used.
Basically, we actually don't care, but it pisses us off when people change from one to the other for no good reason. However, our policy doesn't actually give us a way to change from one to the other, even if a good reason shows up.
I don't see it as making it impossible to change, but rather saying that violating "whatever makes sense for the topic" is the only good reason to change from one to the other.
-Mark
On 6/10/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't see it as making it impossible to change, but rather saying that violating "whatever makes sense for the topic" is the only good reason to change from one to the other.
Not surprisingly, that rarely helps. Most topics are not strongly associated with one form of English or another. How about this scenario: The original "contributor" writes 2 paragraphs in AmE. Later, a group of British editors decides to expand the article to 40 paragraphs. According to our guidelines, they would not be justified in changing to BE.
As I see it, the change just has to be justfied by some tangible benefit. Here, the benefit is clear - great expansion of the article.
Steve
On 6/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't see it as making it impossible to change, but rather saying that violating "whatever makes sense for the topic" is the only good reason to change from one to the other.
Not surprisingly, that rarely helps. Most topics are not strongly associated with one form of English or another. How about this scenario: The original "contributor" writes 2 paragraphs in AmE. Later, a group of British editors decides to expand the article to 40 paragraphs. According to our guidelines, they would not be justified in changing to BE.
As I see it, the change just has to be justfied by some tangible benefit. Here, the benefit is clear - great expansion of the article.
Good writers should also be able to write in a style contrary to their own: in this case, writing AE when BE is their preference.
On 6/10/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/10/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I don't see it as making it impossible to change, but rather saying
that
violating "whatever makes sense for the topic" is the only good reason
to change from one to the other.
Not surprisingly, that rarely helps. Most topics are not strongly associated with one form of English or another. How about this scenario: The original "contributor" writes 2 paragraphs in AmE. Later, a group of British editors decides to expand the article to 40 paragraphs. According to our guidelines, they would not be justified in changing to BE.
As I see it, the change just has to be justfied by some tangible benefit. Here, the benefit is clear - great expansion of the article.
Good writers should also be able to write in a style contrary to their own: in this case, writing AE when BE is their preference.
Although your example would be a good example of when AE to BE would be acceptable.
On 6/10/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Good writers should also be able to write in a style contrary to their own: in this case, writing AE when BE is their preference.
That may or may not be true, but it certainly isn't relevant to the discussion of whether Wikipedians must respect the language style choices of their predecesors.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Not surprisingly, that rarely helps. Most topics are not strongly associated with one form of English or another. How about this scenario: The original "contributor" writes 2 paragraphs in AmE. Later, a group of British editors decides to expand the article to 40 paragraphs. According to our guidelines, they would not be justified in changing to BE.
It would really help -- pardon me for engaging in a bit of wistful thinking here -- if people wouldn't get so worked up about the whole AmE/BrE thing.
If someone gratuitously rewrote a bunch of my own purple prose into the other style, I'd just laugh, or shake my head. What's the harm? It's certainly nothing to get roiled up into a revert war over, or a big, wonky policy debate.
There seem to be lots of American editors who think that British English is *wrong*, and likewise British editors who think that American English is *wrong*. (They rarely come out and say this explicitly, but the vigor with which they debate a change from one to the other suggests that's how thy really feel, deep down.) But, of course, it's not that one or the other is Right or Wrong; they're just different.
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
On 6/10/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
There seem to be lots of American editors who think that British English is *wrong*, and likewise British editors who think that American English is *wrong*. (They rarely come out and say this
I think you're mischaracterising it. There are a number of Americans in general who have had very little contact with British spelling, and find it *wrong*. Most British-spellers have had contact with American spelling, and those that object, find it *bad*. They generally accept it as a valid choice, they just don't like it.
So, generalising a lot, Am->Br is usually done out of ignorance, Br->Am out of bloody-mindedness.
explicitly, but the vigor with which they debate a change from one to the other suggests that's how thy really feel, deep down.) But, of course, it's not that one or the other is Right or Wrong; they're just different.
AmE in an article about cricket is "wrong".
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
Eep.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/10/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
There seem to be lots of American editors who think that British English is *wrong*, and likewise British editors who think that American English is *wrong*. (They rarely come out and say this
I think you're mischaracterising it. There are a number of Americans in general who have had very little contact with British spelling, and find it *wrong*. Most British-spellers have had contact with American spelling, and those that object, find it *bad*. They generally accept it as a valid choice, they just don't like it.
So, generalising a lot, Am->Br is usually done out of ignorance, Br->Am out of bloody-mindedness.
<snip>
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
On 6/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So, generalising a lot, Am->Br is usually done out of ignorance, Br->Am out of bloody-mindedness.
<snip>
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Yes.
Steve
Steve Summit wrote:
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
It's not a problem. The reasonable people understand that it needs to be on two separate pages.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
It's not a problem. The reasonable people understand that it needs to be on two separate pages.
Standard practice of dictionaries, though, is to collapse trivial variants into one entry. Even the OED, quite possibly the most thorough English-language encyclopedia in existence, does this. What's the point of duplicating information?
-Mark
On 14/06/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
It's not a problem. The reasonable people understand that it needs to be on two separate pages.
Standard practice of dictionaries, though, is to collapse trivial variants into one entry. Even the OED, quite possibly the most thorough English-language encyclopedia in existence, does this. What's the point of duplicating information?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's simply not NPOV to list only one, or to list both under one title. The OED, apart from being authoritative, is still British, while Wiktionary is for all variants of English.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
Wildrick Steele wrote:
On 14/06/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
(The problem's just as bad over on Wiktionary, where there are stubbornly, defiantly distinct pages for `color' and `colour'. Huge, repetitive, internecine arguments regularly erupt, whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that the two entries be merged somehow since they're "obviously" just two spelling variants for "the same" word.)
It's not a problem. The reasonable people understand that it needs to be on two separate pages.
Standard practice of dictionaries, though, is to collapse trivial variants into one entry. Even the OED, quite possibly the most thorough English-language encyclopedia in existence, does this. What's the point of duplicating information?
It's simply not NPOV to list only one, or to list both under one title. The OED, apart from being authoritative, is still British, while Wiktionary is for all variants of English.
That sounds like an argument for making "hard" links where both titles are equally authoritative---i.e. "traveling" and "travelling" are both top-level titles, but in fact are the same page.
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
-Mark
On 6/15/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
This whole thing seems silly, bordering on extremely silly. Should Wikipedia have separate articles for petrol and gasoline?
Possible solution (if it's absolutely critical that color and colour both have top level non-redirected articles): Put all the content in {{colr}} and transclude it. If you include a heading near the top and people use section editing, they won't even know!
Steve
On 15/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
This whole thing seems silly, bordering on extremely silly. Should Wikipedia have separate articles for petrol and gasoline?
Possible solution (if it's absolutely critical that color and colour both have top level non-redirected articles): Put all the content in {{colr}} and transclude it. If you include a heading near the top and people use section editing, they won't even know!
Steve
Right, if it were that simple, this would have long been solved before. Please check out the tons of discussions on it, for instance here:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/March_06#First...
Everyone is welcome to re-start the discussions, but I doubt it will change anything.
Reasons include that [[color]] contains, or at least should contain, different etymologies, pronunciations, derived terms, related terms, etc. than [[colour]]. Another argument is that [[color]] also lists the Latin, Spanish, etc. words, which [[colour]] doesn't of course.
Redirects are really a Wikipedia thing, and cause much disagreement over on Wiktionary. A dictionary isn't fit to redirect the user to a different page, when they only need to know what the word they entered exactly means.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
On 6/17/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
Redirects are really a Wikipedia thing, and cause much disagreement over on Wiktionary. A dictionary isn't fit to redirect the user to a different page, when they only need to know what the word they entered exactly means.
Hmm. A redirect is the electronic equivalent of "See xxx". There's nothing un-dictionary-like about "Variant spelling of xxx, see xxx".
But hey, Wiktionary can fight its own battles...
Steve
Wildrick Steele wrote:
On 15/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Possible solution (if it's absolutely critical that color and colour both have top level non-redirected articles): Put all the content in {{colr}} and transclude it. If you include a heading near the top and people use section editing, they won't even know!
Reasons include that [[color]] contains, or at least should contain, different etymologies, pronunciations, derived terms, related terms, etc. than [[colour]]. Another argument is that [[color]] also lists the Latin, Spanish, etc. words, which [[colour]] doesn't of course.
Hmm, that does rather ruin the redirect idea. Silly of me not to figure that out myself. (Of course, I don't really find the Wiktionary approach of putting homographs -- in different languages, even -- on the same page very useful, but I'm not going to try changing _that_.)
The template approach proposed by Steve could still work, though. One could have both [[color]] and [[colour]] transclude {{en-color-colour}}.
On 18/06/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Wildrick Steele wrote:
On 15/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Possible solution (if it's absolutely critical that color and colour both have top level non-redirected articles): Put all the content in {{colr}} and transclude it. If you include a heading near the top and people use section editing, they won't even know!
Reasons include that [[color]] contains, or at least should contain, different etymologies, pronunciations, derived terms, related terms,
etc.
than [[colour]]. Another argument is that [[color]] also lists the
Latin,
Spanish, etc. words, which [[colour]] doesn't of course.
Hmm, that does rather ruin the redirect idea. Silly of me not to figure that out myself. (Of course, I don't really find the Wiktionary approach of putting homographs -- in different languages, even -- on the same page very useful, but I'm not going to try changing _that_.)
The template approach proposed by Steve could still work, though. One could have both [[color]] and [[colour]] transclude {{en-color-colour}}.
-- Ilmari Karonen
The only sections that are shared by both words are the translations, though. Because of that, we're now experimenting with having a shared translation section transcluded via template.
-- Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
Delirium wrote:
That sounds like an argument for making "hard" links where both titles are equally authoritative---i.e. "traveling" and "travelling" are both top-level titles, but in fact are the same page.
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
I do wonder why they don't simply redirect both to [[traveling, travelling]]. Of course, I'm not an active wiktionarian, so I wouldn't know. It sounds so obvious that it's probably a perennial proposal.
On 15/06/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Delirium wrote:
That sounds like an argument for making "hard" links where both titles are equally authoritative---i.e. "traveling" and "travelling" are both top-level titles, but in fact are the same page.
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
I do wonder why they don't simply redirect both to [[traveling, travelling]]. Of course, I'm not an active wiktionarian, so I wouldn't know. It sounds so obvious that it's probably a perennial proposal.
But *which one would go first*?
(I'll bet you people would fight over that, too.)
On 6/15/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
But *which one would go first*?
That's simple -- put them in alphabetical order - I mean, this /is/ a dictionary, right?
ABCD
On 15/06/06, ABCD en.abcd@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
But *which one would go first*?
That's simple -- put them in alphabetical order - I mean, this /is/ a dictionary, right?
Uh... um... WP:NOT paper. And alphabetical order is just Western systemic bias. Oooh, oooh, I know! You're really wanting us to use (the one that comes first) and you're suggesting this as a sneaky way to avoid consensus...
You'd be *amazed* what people can come up with when they get their heels stuck into something.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 15/06/06, ABCD en.abcd@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
But *which one would go first*?
That's simple -- put them in alphabetical order - I mean, this /is/ a dictionary, right?
Uh... um... WP:NOT paper. And alphabetical order is just Western systemic bias. Oooh, oooh, I know! You're really wanting us to use (the one that comes first) and you're suggesting this as a sneaky way to avoid consensus...
So we argue that priority should be given to "color", "aluminium", "center" and "encyclopaedia". I'd like to see the BrEn/AmEn folks try to wrap their minds around that.
On 6/16/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
So we argue that priority should be given to "color", "aluminium", "center" and "encyclopaedia". I'd like to see the BrEn/AmEn folks try to wrap their minds around that.
I like it. Neither Wiktionary nor Wikipedia are written in either BE or AmE - a blend like that seems perfectly natural.
Steve
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Delirium wrote:
That sounds like an argument for making "hard" links where both titles are equally authoritative---i.e. "traveling" and "travelling" are both top-level titles, but in fact are the same page.
The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay in sync. Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I checked).
I do wonder why they don't simply redirect both to [[traveling, travelling]]. Of course, I'm not an active wiktionarian, so I wouldn't know. It sounds so obvious that it's probably a perennial proposal.
It might work with "travel(l)ing", but not with "colo(u)r" since "color" is also used in Spanish, but "colour" is not.
Ec
On 6/9/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
*sigh* People pursuing BE and AE should see what it's like to be a writer who has to write a certain way because our style guide says so. Our company writes in AE, while I personally dislike AE and prefer to write in BE as much as possible. I write in AE in my company because I'd likely get fired if I didn't.
I am in that exact same situation - I'm employed to write in AmE, although AusE (or even BE) is my preference. It's confusing, and mostly manifests itself with words like "behavio[u]r", and occasionally "level[l]ed" etc.
I prefer to to write in BE, but when I see people trying to convert American articles to BE, such as [[Special Activities Division]], it annoys me greatly. Same with British articles to AE (such as [[Harry Potter]]). This also applies to articles that could be written in either AE or BE, but were first written in one form, and people come to convert it over. I wish I could apply a category or template to indicate that the article is written in AE, and please piss off with the BE conversions (and vice versa).
I tend to think conversions are a kind of "noise" that should be justified by a considerable contirbution. A 20 paragraph article that becomes a 25 paragraph article accompanied by a conversion from BE to AE seems like a good deal. A conversion with no other redeeming features tends to grate, however.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/9/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
*sigh* People pursuing BE and AE should see what it's like to be a writer who has to write a certain way because our style guide says so. Our company writes in AE, while I personally dislike AE and prefer to write in BE as much as possible. I write in AE in my company because I'd likely get fired if I didn't.
I am in that exact same situation - I'm employed to write in AmE, although AusE (or even BE) is my preference. It's confusing, and mostly manifests itself with words like "behavio[u]r", and occasionally "level[l]ed" etc.
I prefer to to write in BE, but when I see people trying to convert American articles to BE, such as [[Special Activities Division]], it annoys me greatly. Same with British articles to AE (such as [[Harry Potter]]). This also applies to articles that could be written in either AE or BE, but were first written in one form, and people come to convert it over. I wish I could apply a category or template to indicate that the article is written in AE, and please piss off with the BE conversions (and vice versa).
I tend to think conversions are a kind of "noise" that should be justified by a considerable contirbution. A 20 paragraph article that becomes a 25 paragraph article accompanied by a conversion from BE to AE seems like a good deal. A conversion with no other redeeming features tends to grate, however.
As a user of Canadian English I find it best to have a compromise hybrid where some words will have an affinity to AmE and others to BrE, although any single word should be spelled consistently throughout an article. Insisting on all American or British spelling is really just another form of POV pushing.
Ec
On 6/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
As a user of Canadian English I find it best to have a compromise hybrid where some words will have an affinity to AmE and others to BrE, although any single word should be spelled consistently throughout an article. Insisting on all American or British spelling is really just another form of POV pushing.
Hmm, interesting idea. There is something inconsistent about saying that Wikipedia supports all forms of English - except within the one article. It would perhaps be better to allow freely mixing spellings like this. The downside is that it would be harder to tell when someone is changing a spelling to be obnoxious. If someone deletes "behavior" and paraphrases to write "civilised people", is that changing from Am->Br?
Steve
G'day Steve,
On 6/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
As a user of Canadian English I find it best to have a compromise hybrid where some words will have an affinity to AmE and others to BrE, although any single word should be spelled consistently throughout an article. Insisting on all American or British spelling is really just another form of POV pushing.
Hmm, interesting idea. There is something inconsistent about saying that Wikipedia supports all forms of English - except within the one article. It would perhaps be better to allow freely mixing spellings like this. The downside is that it would be harder to tell when someone is changing a spelling to be obnoxious. If someone deletes "behavior" and paraphrases to write "civilised people", is that changing from Am->Br?
Yes, but inadvertantly. I'm sure some helpful anon will be along soon to "correct" the "misspelling" and give us yet another one of those zs (sorry, zees).
By the way, could we kinda stop using "Br" or "BrE" or "British English" to refer to variants of English that aren't American? There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
On 6/12/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
By the way, could we kinda stop using "Br" or "BrE" or "British English" to refer to variants of English that aren't American? There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
Got a better term? Wikipedia sometimes uses "Commonwealth English" but I've never heard it outside that context. Probably the best would be something descriptive, like "ize" English vs "ise", sort of like Languedoc and Languedoïl in France (or zezeo (sp?) in Spanish).
I don't think Australia really uses British spelling...we use a variety of spelling generally closer to the British end of the scale, but we're not that fussy.
Steve
On 6/12/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Yes, but inadvertantly. I'm sure some helpful anon will be along soon to "correct" the "misspelling" and give us yet another one of those zs (sorry, zees).
By the way, could we kinda stop using "Br" or "BrE" or "British English" to refer to variants of English that aren't American? There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
And there's also Canadian English. I've written in both Canadian English and Australian English, and to tell you the truth, I don't remember all the exact differences apart from the obvious ones. I just know than Canadian English and Australian English have a lot more in common with British English than American English, and therefore I say that I prefer "British English". I'm not going to say "I prefer to use Australian English, British English, and Canadian English", when quite clearly, the style I prefer to use has a lot to do with British English than American English (although it would be cool to say that I use "ABC-English").
Death Phoenix wrote: <snip>
And there's also Canadian English. I've written in both Canadian English and Australian English, and to tell you the truth, I don't remember all the exact differences apart from the obvious ones. I just know than Canadian English and Australian English have a lot more in common with British English than American English, and therefore I say that I prefer "British English". I'm not going to say "I prefer to use Australian English, British English, and Canadian English", when quite clearly, the style I prefer to use has a lot to do with British English than American English (although it would be cool to say that I use "ABC-English").
I tend to call it Commonwealth English, except when something gets me really annoyed, and then I'm liable to call it Proper Bloody English.
On 6/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
<snip> > And there's also Canadian English. I've written in both Canadian English and > Australian English, and to tell you the truth, I don't remember all the > exact differences apart from the obvious ones. I just know than Canadian > English and Australian English have a lot more in common with British > English than American English, and therefore I say that I prefer "British > English". I'm not going to say "I prefer to use Australian English, British > English, and Canadian English", when quite clearly, the style I prefer to > use has a lot to do with British English than American English (although it > would be cool to say that I use "ABC-English"). >
I tend to call it Commonwealth English, except when something gets me really annoyed, and then I'm liable to call it Proper Bloody English.
PBE's a good one.
On 6/5/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the whole silly issue deserves.
You forgot the bit where a third, unrelated group jumps on the bandwagon complaining about "freedom of speech" violations...
Would it be fair to say that the rights to cutesie sigs are probably about as strong as the rights to refactor cutesie sigs?
Steve (simple, customised sig - my username, but linked to my talk page)
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be fair to say that the rights to cutesie sigs are probably about as strong as the rights to refactor cutesie sigs?
I think that's about right.