Absolutely. Much better than:
"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" *
* Offer does not apply to vandals, trolls, people who cannot refrain from personal attacks, people who cannot play by the rules of an online community, blocked users, banned users or people who share an IP with them etc...
Except s/author/editor:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
-- nyenyec
Musch better than On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". There's too much abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are always welcome".
Oh, very well said. '''Support'''
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Much better than:
"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" *
- Offer does not apply to vandals, trolls, people who cannot refrain
from personal attacks, people who cannot play by the rules of an online community, blocked users, banned users or people who share an IP with them etc...
Except s/author/editor:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
-- nyenyec
Unless they upset the wrong people.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 2/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
-- nyenyec
Unless they upset the wrong people.
-- geni
Then they aren't good editors, are they?
- -- Sean Barrett | You'll never find a more wretched hive sean@epoptic.org | of scum and villainy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi
On 2/22/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 2/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
-- nyenyec
Unless they upset the wrong people.
-- geni
Then they aren't good editors, are they?
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
-- geni
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
Well for an extreme example [[User:SPUI]] is a competent editor. Unfortunetly people have not learned to ignore the other stuff.
Back in the day deletionist had a very hard time on WP:RFA although that does appear to have been replaced by userboxes with certain voting patterns making people understandably paranoid.
-- geni
G'day geni,
On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
Well for an extreme example [[User:SPUI]] is a competent editor. Unfortunetly people have not learned to ignore the other stuff.
What a load of cobblers! SPUI, nice guy that he is, has a loooong history of trolling, incivility, casual use of personal attacks, disruption of Wikipedia, refusal to behave appropriately, and extremely poor judgement. One incident that sticks in the mind is when he edit warred over a valid AfD he wanted to "speedy keep" within a few hours of creation; I *assume* that, in doing so, there was more at stake than just "upset[ting] the wrong people".
Back in the day deletionist had a very hard time on WP:RFA although that does appear to have been replaced by userboxes with certain voting patterns making people understandably paranoid.
Uh ... ?
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
On 2/24/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
What a load of cobblers! SPUI, nice guy that he is, has a loooong history of trolling, incivility, casual use of personal attacks, disruption of Wikipedia, refusal to behave appropriately, and extremely poor judgement. One incident that sticks in the mind is when he edit warred over a valid AfD he wanted to "speedy keep" within a few hours of creation; I *assume* that, in doing so, there was more at stake than just "upset[ting] the wrong people".
Hey he's still a good editor. Or at least most of his edits to the article namespace are good. In the last few weeks we have seen admins edit waring over actal deletions. Editwaring over AFDs is fairly minor by comparison.
The only people who have a real problem with him are those who haven't learned to ignore him.
Back in the day deletionist had a very hard time on WP:RFA although that does appear to have been replaced by userboxes with certain voting patterns making people understandably paranoid.
Uh ... ?
Just look at the history of RFA. Being a known deletionist was a great way to rack up opose votes. The recent incerdent involveing userboxes is covered on WP:AN somwehere
_____________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point
where it is
posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
[Raises hand]
You know I'm a good editor - my recent contributions are exemplary if sparse - but there are folk who'd shoot me on sight.
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
I consistently upset people.
On 2/27/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
Wikipedia's internal politics long ago reached the point where it is posible to be a perfectaly good editor and still upset the wrong people.
Can you give an example?
I consistently upset people.
Oh yeah, and there are lots of editors who upset me.
And it seems that all those userbox-using editors are horribly upsetting to a lot of people and they can't be *all* bad.
You have got to be kidding me....
Even if there is such a problem this is entirely the wrong place or time to bring this up.
On 2/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Much better than:
"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" *
- Offer does not apply to vandals, trolls, people who cannot refrain
from personal attacks, people who cannot play by the rules of an online community, blocked users, banned users or people who share an IP with them etc...
Except s/author/editor:
"Welcome to Wikipedia, where good editors are always welcome".
-- nyenyec
Unless they upset the wrong people.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.