Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities, react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the encyclopedia-writing.
Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather, that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
The people disrupting Wikipedia—that would be us, writing dozens of messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?
You want to end the userbox war peacefully without screwing up the community? Repeat after me: "It's not worth it, and I should go mediate an NPOV dispute or do some research and write one of our requested articles, or bring an article to FA status instead of jousting with userbox-happy newbies."
And then actually do it.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Philip Welch wrote:
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities, react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the encyclopedia-writing.
Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather, that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
The people disrupting Wikipedia�that would be us, writing dozens of messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?
You want to end the userbox war peacefully without screwing up the community? Repeat after me: "It's not worth it, and I should go mediate an NPOV dispute or do some research and write one of our requested articles, or bring an article to FA status instead of jousting with userbox-happy newbies."
And then actually do it.
Well said.
Geoff
--- Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities, react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the encyclopedia-writing.
Hear hear. As a community, we give userboxes a disproportionate amount of attention and debate.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
My concern is that newbies don't stay new, and that this whole thing - both the userboxes and the war against them - is not going to give them a great start.
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
-Matt
My thought exactly.
Fred
On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
My concern is that newbies don't stay new, and that this whole thing - both the userboxes and the war against them - is not going to give them a great start.
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
That seems reasonable - encyclopaedic templates and userboxes should probably not be mixed. We could always create a "user template:" namespace too.
Steve
Yes, this confused me. A template is part of the encyclopedia. Userboxes are more self-expression. Separating them out will help.
Fred
On Feb 18, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
That seems reasonable - encyclopaedic templates and userboxes should probably not be mixed. We could always create a "user template:" namespace too.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
In the process of bashing on the untagged images that have accumulated since last summer, I've noticed quite a few accounts where they've uploaded, banged on articles, etc, yet the talk page is blank - no one ever posted a welcome message. There is another contingent of logins whose talk pages seem to record mostly semi-informed discussion with other newbies. Some stick around, some only last for a day or week.
Dunno if it it's evidence, but clearly there is a bunch whose first interaction with the "older culture" is coming six months after their first edit, and only because an uploaded image is found to be missing information.
Stan
On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Matt Brown morven@byz.org wrote:
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
Only anecdotally, and personal experience/feeling. However, having lived on Usenet before Things Changed, I get a "I've seen this before" sense.
Not saying the result has to be the same, of course, but I think things are changing here.
-Matt
On 2/20/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Only anecdotally, and personal experience/feeling. However, having lived on Usenet before Things Changed, I get a "I've seen this before" sense.
Not saying the result has to be the same, of course, but I think things are changing here.
*nod* It's a pity we don't have any useful user statistics. The figure of 600,000 or so is meaningless as it includes every user account every created. Do we have any figures on how many unique users edited Wikipedia on any given week?
Steve
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:27:49 -0800, you wrote:
I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they tend to acclimate to the older culture. There are so many newbies that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing one.
<AOL />
Oh, wait, this is a mailing list, not Usenet, isn't it? ;-)
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
But make sure the welcoming committee gently inform people that Trolls Are Evil.
And I really really don't think that the perennial argument between left and right in American politics (which of course is right and far right for the rest of us...) helps build an encyclopaedia, any more than proclaiming yourself a paedophile does. For a while I've been using a flag in my wikisig, this debate has persuaded me to stop. It's also led me to think hard about the real wiki culture, and amending my ways to fit in with it (which can't be bad). But maybe the boxen are good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.
Anyway, what is needed, I think, is an "official" statement that the war is over, and it's time to move on. People I admire and respect have done things which I think they should not have done, and that has in some cases got them into trouble. These are not evil people, they are just folks like us with strong opinions. I want to get back to normal, whatever normal is.
Guy
"Guy Chapman" wrote
But maybe the boxen are good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.
That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good faith' for whole scads of editors we come across. What a relief! Maybe I have misjudged the little critters.
Charles
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:31:08 -0000, you wrote:
But maybe the boxen are good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.
That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good faith' for whole scads of editors we come across. What a relief! Maybe I have misjudged the little critters.
Maybe you haven't seen my userpage. I freely admit to strong opinions, when I edit articles on subjects on which I have strong opinions, I do so in good faith and I am, to the best of my ability, neutral - but I still have strong opinions, and that means it's best if someone else has a look.
Strong opinions and good faith are absolutely not exclusive, and being aware of the subconscious bias of another user is not the same as failing to assume good faith.
Guy
There are three usages for a Community namespace: * a wiki namespace would be too redundant with the Wikipedia namespace * a template namespace would also be redundant since most community templates can be kept as subpages to a wikipedia userbox template. * a category namespace would separate the use of the category namespace for content, while still allowing
for quick access to particular subpage templates
Editor:Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hmm...the only problem is that I see arguments over 'No, this goes into Wikipedia:. No this goes in Community:. No no nonono! " ad nauseum
On 2/19/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
There are three usages for a Community namespace:
- a wiki namespace would be too redundant with the Wikipedia namespace
- a template namespace would also be redundant since
most community templates can be kept as subpages to a wikipedia userbox template.
a category namespace would separate the use of the category namespace for content, while still allowing
for quick access to particular subpage templates
Editor:Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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.
BTW, this is really ironic, because it is in fact my Yahoo! Account that gets 10 spam messages *a day*. But i suppose that's off-topic :P
On 2/19/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
-- ~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.
I'd like to think that a community space would work, but I can only see it filling up with trolls, malcontents and timewasters. If someone wants to start an external community wiki or forum for people who happen to use Wikipedia, it isn't very difficult to do.
I've already suggested that last year, as have others.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to think that a community space would work, but I can only see it filling up with trolls, malcontents and timewasters. If someone wants to start an external community wiki or forum for people who happen to use Wikipedia, it isn't very difficult to do. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen a bloke with a hat with "Wizzard" written on it.
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pre...
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen a bloke with a hat with "Wizzard" written on it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to think that a community space would work, but I can only see it filling up with trolls, malcontents and timewasters. If someone wants to start an external community wiki or forum for people who happen to use Wikipedia, it isn't very difficult to do.
While your fears may have some substance, again, a hardline approach would appear to be entirely anti-wiki and out of character for the reasonable people who run this site. Keep in mind that a separate namespace wouldnt exist just to separate content from community --but to make pruning within the community space easier by keeping it within community rules.
Regards, Steve
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
I'd like to think that a community space would work, but I can only see it filling up with trolls, malcontents and timewasters. If someone wants to start an external community wiki or forum for people who happen to use Wikipedia, it isn't very difficult to do.
Wikipedia Review?
-Phil
Probably the sanest use of a community namespace would be for the migration of all non encyclopedia-related categories like Babel, geolocation, training, etc. a la [[Community:User en-N]] or somesuch. That way we would avoid endless ramblings on what a "community" page is (not) allowed to have, unclutter the encyclopedic category namespace and also be able to delete community categories through standard CfD.
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:54:23 -0600, you wrote:
it is in fact my Yahoo! Account that gets 10 spam messages *a day*
Is that all? My spam filter currently discards over a quarter of a million spam messages daily! But not all for my account...
Guy
Well I keep clicking 'report as spam' and none of it ever gets filtered (0% of my messages ever go into the bulk mail folder)
That's why I use gmail. I get about one spam a week and 0% has ever touched my inbox
(slightly off topic again :)
On 2/19/06, Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:54:23 -0600, you wrote:
it is in fact my Yahoo! Account that gets 10 spam messages *a day*
Is that all? My spam filter currently discards over a quarter of a million spam messages daily! But not all for my account...
Guy
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
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.
The irony here is that you guys have spammed this thread with off topic comment about spam. I thought my suggestion was reasonably constructive and concisely put. But putting things concisely doesnt resonate well with people who like to tug on threads.
Steven
--- Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:54:23 -0600, you wrote:
it is in fact my Yahoo! Account that gets 10 spam
messages *a day*
Is that all? My spam filter currently discards over a quarter of a million spam messages daily! But not all for my account...
Guy
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:08:56 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
The irony here is that you guys have spammed this thread with off topic comment about spam.
Lighten up already! Guy (JzG)
I wrote:
The irony here is that you guys have spammed this thread with off topic comment about spam.
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Lighten up already! Guy (JzG)
Yeah, I didnt intend to sound like I was picking on Ilya.
S
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Ilya N. wrote:
On 2/19/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
BTW, this is really ironic, because it is in fact my Yahoo! Account that gets 10 spam messages *a day*. But i suppose that's off-topic :P
Mine too. Gmail's spam filter is /way/ better.
On 2/19/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...the only problem is that I see arguments over 'No, this goes into Wikipedia:. No this goes in Community:. No no nonono! " ad nauseum
That's a fair point. And at the end of the day, why should there exist a "community"? WP:NOT explicitly discourages it...
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm...the only problem is that I see arguments
over 'No, this goes into
Wikipedia:. No this goes in Community:. No no
nonono! " ad nauseum
That's a fair point. And at the end of the day, why should there exist a "community"? WP:NOT explicitly discourages it...
I think JW's response to Angela was fairly conciliatory on the basic nature of community is itself based in expression. The issue then became one about separation from content namespaces.
Im simply adding the little factor that the Category: namespace shouldnt be used for community purposes either. We already have a Wikipedia namespace which can be used to encapsulate any community wiki pages. So, assuming its just as easy to add a separate Community: namespace, the issue is then what functionality should it have? Templates can be transcluded from subpages just fine. It then makes sense to make a separate category table for the community.
Steven
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Since you complained that no-one responded substantively to your proposal; here's such a response, I hope.
The proposal seems to leave out the most important part - What Would We Use A "Community namespace" for? It seems like this should be at least suggested, in a proposal suggesting creating one... It claims "three usages", but none of them are actually uses - they are rebuttals to objections. What are we to *use* it for?
On Feb 19, 2006, at 10:42 AM, stevertigo wrote:
There are three usages for a Community namespace:
- a wiki namespace would be too redundant with the Wikipedia namespace
This seems to a rebuttal to an objection to making a new namespace called "Wiki:" - I've never heard anyone suggest this, so I'm not sure why it's being rebutted.
- a template namespace would also be redundant since most community
templates can be kept as subpages to a wikipedia userbox template.
What template namespace? The current namespace called "Template" has obvious use - it's the way to have templates that don't have a namespace in front of them. Again, I can't really see what this has to do with the proposal - I thought this was about a new namespace called "Community", what does this have to do with templates?
- a category namespace would separate the use of the category
namespace for content, while still allowing for quick access to particular subpage templates
Huh? Wait, now the proposal is to create a category namespace(other than the one we already have)? I thought it was to create a namespace called "Community" (for what, it is never said). Where is this category stuff coming from?
If I were to speculate, I would think this had to something to do with Userboxes, but due to the complete lack of any statements about what this "Community" namespace would be used for, I can't really tell what.
Jesse Weinstein
To answer your question about the context, I was hoping to avoid using the term "userboxes." I never liked the term user: anyway, and the last thing I want to be is a part of the cesspool that's been the userbox threads.
Yes, it (the Community namespace category field) would serve the modest purpose of being a kind of universal panacea for the endless userbox thread disease.
Steven
--- Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Since you complained that no-one responded substantively to your proposal; here's such a response, I hope.
The proposal seems to leave out the most important part - What Would We Use A "Community namespace" for? It seems like this should be at least suggested, in a proposal suggesting creating one... It claims "three usages", but none of them are actually uses - they are rebuttals to objections. What are we to *use* it for?
On Feb 19, 2006, at 10:42 AM, stevertigo wrote:
There are three usages for a Community namespace:
- a wiki namespace would be too redundant with the
Wikipedia namespace This seems to a rebuttal to an objection to making a new namespace called "Wiki:" - I've never heard anyone suggest this, so I'm not sure why it's being rebutted.
- a template namespace would also be redundant
since most community
templates can be kept as subpages to a wikipedia
userbox template. What template namespace? The current namespace called "Template" has obvious use - it's the way to have templates that don't have a namespace in front of them. Again, I can't really see what this has to do with the proposal - I thought this was about a new namespace called "Community", what does this have to do with templates?
- a category namespace would separate the use of
the category
namespace for content, while still allowing for
quick access to
particular subpage templates
Huh? Wait, now the proposal is to create a category namespace(other than the one we already have)? I thought it was to create a namespace called "Community" (for what, it is never said). Where is this category stuff coming from?
If I were to speculate, I would think this had to something to do with Userboxes, but due to the complete lack of any statements about what this "Community" namespace would be used for, I can't really tell what.
Jesse Weinstein
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Feb 19, 2006, at 9:37 PM, stevertigo wrote:
To answer your question about the context, I was hoping to avoid using the term "userboxes." I never liked the term user: anyway, and the last thing I want to be is a part of the cesspool that's been the userbox threads.
I understand the motive, having done it myself. (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JesseW/First_version_revert_proposal )
Yes, it (the Community namespace category field) would serve the modest purpose of being a kind of universal panacea for the endless userbox thread disease.
Ok, so now we can get into how this would work (or not) - AFAIK, we already have a namespace for community pages. That is, pages used by the people writing the encyclopedia(the community) to discuss, plan, organize, etc. It's called the Wikipedia namespace. And we have a way to handle categories that are part of this namespace - they are children of Category:Wikipedia administration. We don't specifically divide the template namespace this way, although we could.
So I'm not sure what the difference would be between what I described above, and the proposed "Community" namespace. Please explain this difference further.
Thanks, Jesse Weinstein
--- Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Ok, so now we can get into how this would work (or not) - AFAIK, we already have a namespace for community pages. That is, pages used by the people writing the encyclopedia(the community) to discuss, plan, organize, etc. It's called the Wikipedia namespace. And we have a way to handle categories that are part of this namespace
- they are
children of Category:Wikipedia administration. We don't specifically divide the template namespace this way, although we could.
So I'm not sure what the difference would be between what I described above, and the proposed "Community" namespace. Please explain this difference further.
Its not my necessary for me to explain how things would work. Inventors arent builders, and builders arent promoters. Cooperative arenas dont work well if their purpose is presupposed. All we need to do is define the boundaries. Maybe that would be easier to deal with in Community space. But what do I know.
This is of course in the context of the excessively long userbox discussion, so the "why" and "what for" should be reasonably obvious.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Feb 21, 2006, at 10:18 AM, stevertigo wrote:
--- Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Ok, so now we can get into how this would work (or not) - AFAIK, we already have a namespace for community pages. That is, pages used by the people writing the encyclopedia(the community) to discuss, plan, organize, etc. It's called the Wikipedia namespace.
Its not my necessary for me to explain how things would work.
I wasn't asking you to. I was, and am, asking you what would go on in the "Community" namespace that would be different than what goes on in the namespace we already have for community pages, the "Wikipedia" namespace. Sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear in the previous message.
This is of course in the context of the excessively long userbox discussion, so the "why" and "what for" should be reasonably obvious.
Either the "Community" namespace would be identical in scope to the "Wikipedia" namespace, in which case it would be redundant, or it would have some different scope. Assuming you are not proposing a redundant namespace, I want to know what the different scope would be.
Jesse Weinstein
"Guy Chapman" wrote
That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good faith' for whole scads of editors we come across. What a relief! Maybe I have misjudged the little critters.
Maybe you haven't seen my userpage. I freely admit to strong opinions, when I edit articles on subjects on which I have strong opinions, I do so in good faith and I am, to the best of my ability, neutral - but I still have strong opinions, and that means it's best if someone else has a look.
Strong opinions and good faith are absolutely not exclusive, and being aware of the subconscious bias of another user is not the same as failing to assume good faith.
Over in my corner, I'm strongly of the opinion that User Pages are to be used in a confidence-building way. That would of course be the confidence of others in me, not my confidence in my own opinions, in own opinion of my rigorous adherence to NPOV, my patriotism with respect to the great county of Cambridgeshire, all that. Given that we're supposed to leave many things at the door, I don't really hold with giving other Wikipedians the hat-check girl's view of me, when they may simply be curious as to who corrected their typo.
I'm completely against having Wikipedia touched by the contention and polarizing forces so obvious in the outside world.
Charles
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:40:48 -0000, you wrote:
I'm completely against having Wikipedia touched by the contention and polarizing forces so obvious in the outside world.
So am I. But I am not certain that userboxen are more than a symptom. Some are clearly unacceptable, like the pedo one which was blatant trolling, and I would be happy if there were a ruling that only boxes strictly relevant to making an encyclopaedia were permitted (Babel etc.) buy I don't think it does harm to tell people what our biases are. ~~~~
Guy
On 2/18/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project proper. Then ignore them except for awful examples.
Look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes
Isn't this amazing? The guy is getting fan mail on his user talk page because he's replacing templates with equivalent wiki code!
And see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy
I think this is the future.
On 2/19/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy
Hmm.
Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be
discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong POV. Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there to fix typos?
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
Steve
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong POV.
This depends--context is everything. For instance, I'm libertarian, but I've edited [[Libertarianism]] because I like to pretend I know something about the subject. In the interest of full disclosure I might mention that I am libertarian, which might unknowingly color my contributions. If I edited a lot about politics (I don't), I might want to outright state, "Here are my biases, if they get in my way let me know and help me improve."
If someone's pushing a POV, you can tell from editing patterns alone. On the other hand, if someone is making valuable, good-faith, albeit biased contributions, it's a lot easier to assume good faith when they say straight out "here's my bias, if it shows in my contributions too much feel free to correct."
Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there to fix typos?
This might surprise you, Steve, but people with a strong interest in something generally have an opinion about it too, and vice versa. People usually edit articles about their own interests, after all.
Abortion in particular is the biggest issue where people's opinions tend to create blind spots. Pro-lifers tend to fail to understand and appreciate abortion-choice arguments while abortion-choicers tend to fail to understand and appreciate pro-life arguments, and no one seems willing to acknowledge that the other side holds their opinions in good faith. It's these blind spots which make it utterly crucial for us as editors to be open with one another about our biases so we can correct one another's mistakes.
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
Not if we want to get an encyclopedia written according to the neutral point of view.
On 2/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
This depends--context is everything. For instance, I'm libertarian, but I've edited [[Libertarianism]] because I like to pretend I know something about the subject. In the interest of full disclosure I might mention that I am libertarian, which might unknowingly color my contributions. If I edited a lot about politics (I don't), I might want to outright state, "Here are my biases, if they get in my way let me know and help me improve."
Not surprisingly, I see a big difference between *admitting* a bias, and proudly *proclaiming* a bias. Someone who recognises that their bias is a problem is more likely to step back when told their edit is not NPOV. Someone proud of their bias is more likely to accuse that person of themselves having a bias.
If someone's pushing a POV, you can tell from editing patterns alone. On the other hand, if someone is making valuable, good-faith, albeit biased contributions, it's a lot easier to assume good faith when they say straight out "here's my bias, if it shows in my contributions too much feel free to correct."
Yep. Do you think POV userboxes express that humility?
This might surprise you, Steve, but people with a strong interest in something generally have an opinion about it too, and vice versa. People usually edit articles about their own interests, after all.
Yes...I don't have any intelligent response to make to this comment at the moment. But I'll get back to you. :)
Abortion in particular is the biggest issue where people's opinions tend to create blind spots. Pro-lifers tend to fail to understand and appreciate abortion-choice arguments while abortion-choicers tend to fail to understand and appreciate pro-life arguments, and no one seems willing to acknowledge that the other side holds their opinions in good faith. It's these blind spots which make it utterly crucial for us as editors to be open with one another about our biases so we can correct one another's mistakes.
What if the userbox was "People who believe in abortion are scum"? How would you treat their edits then? Is there a liimt to how biased a person can be and still make useful edits?
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
Not if we want to get an encyclopedia written according to the neutral point of view.
Then shouldn't we allow strongly POV usernames?
Steve
This depends--context is everything. For instance, I'm libertarian, but I've edited [[Libertarianism]] because I like to pretend I know something about the subject. In the interest of full disclosure I might mention that I am libertarian, which might unknowingly color my contributions. If I edited a lot about politics (I don't), I might want to outright state, "Here are my biases, if they get in my way let me know and help me improve."
Not surprisingly, I see a big difference between *admitting* a bias, and proudly *proclaiming* a bias. Someone who recognises that their bias is a problem is more likely to step back when told their edit is not NPOV. Someone proud of their bias is more likely to accuse that person of themselves having a bias.
I agree.
If someone's pushing a POV, you can tell from editing patterns alone. On the other hand, if someone is making valuable, good-faith, albeit biased contributions, it's a lot easier to assume good faith when they say straight out "here's my bias, if it shows in my contributions too much feel free to correct."
Yep. Do you think POV userboxes express that humility?
Hmm. They might, depending on how they were worded, and depending on the context of their presentation. But that's a very good question to ask.
Abortion in particular is the biggest issue where people's opinions tend to create blind spots. Pro-lifers tend to fail to understand and appreciate abortion-choice arguments while abortion-choicers tend to fail to understand and appreciate pro-life arguments, and no one seems willing to acknowledge that the other side holds their opinions in good faith. It's these blind spots which make it utterly crucial for us as editors to be open with one another about our biases so we can correct one another's mistakes.
What if the userbox was "People who believe in abortion are scum"? How would you treat their edits then? Is there a liimt to how biased a person can be and still make useful edits?
I'd have to look at that person's edits to judge how useful their edits were.
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
Not if we want to get an encyclopedia written according to the neutral point of view.
Then shouldn't we allow strongly POV usernames?
No because that would serve no useful purpose. Allowing users to state their biases on their userpages does serve a very useful purpose.
"Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote in message news:f1c3529e0602190636y2aa9b0d9wf50693e807a542f1@mail.gmail.com... [snip]
What if the userbox was "People who believe in abortion are scum"?
I suspect I might take the uncharacteristically-bold step of speedily deleting it on the grounds of disruption and attack.
Was there a particular instance you wanted to draw my attention to? I can let you know when I'm feeling exceptionally crabby if you want me to make it spektackerler :-)
On 2/20/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect I might take the uncharacteristically-bold step of speedily deleting it on the grounds of disruption and attack.
Was there a particular instance you wanted to draw my attention to? I can let you know when I'm feeling exceptionally crabby if you want me to make it spektackerler :-)
Nah, just theorising for the moment. But I'll keep you in mind should I stumble upon one. :)
Steve
Not if it creates a bigger problem than it solves.
Fred
On Feb 19, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/19/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/ Policy
Hmm.
Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be
discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better declared.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong POV. Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there to fix typos?
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
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 2/19/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on userpages?
The problem with userboxes, stated bluntly, is that people are willing to say much more aggressive and divisive things with userboxes than they'll generally say when they're writing it in their own words. For one thing, turning an opinion into a pithy 'This user ...' statement gets rid of nuance and equivocation, and for another thing, many seem to be more comfortable displaying others' words than saying the exact same thing themselves.
-Matt
On 2/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities, react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the encyclopedia-writing.
Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather, that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
The people disrupting Wikipedia—that would be us, writing dozens of messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?
The people disrupting Wikipedia, maybe, are the people writing messages to the listserv about people writing messages to the listserv about userboxes.
Discussing and formulating Wikipedia policy is as important a contribution as is editing an individual article.
Discussing and formulating Wikipedia policy is as important a contribution as is editing an individual article.
Maybe, if that policy is something that would make it easier for us to build an encyclopedia. If the policy in question isn't useful, then we are indeed wasting time.
The question I have is how can we establish a workable procedure to delete destructive user boxes, one that doesn't generate a lot of conflict and wheelwarring. AND make it vary clear that userboxes which just express opinions are perfectly acceptable and not subject to campaigns of suppression. I don't intend to spend one second watching and voting on Templates for deletion, but I like to not have to worry about things going wrong there.
Fred
On Feb 19, 2006, at 9:56 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities, react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the encyclopedia-writing.
Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather, that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
The people disrupting Wikipedia—that would be us, writing dozens of messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?
The people disrupting Wikipedia, maybe, are the people writing messages to the listserv about people writing messages to the listserv about userboxes.
Discussing and formulating Wikipedia policy is as important a contribution as is editing an individual article. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The question I have is how can we establish a workable procedure to delete destructive user boxes, one that doesn't generate a lot of conflict and wheelwarring. AND make it vary clear that userboxes which just express opinions are perfectly acceptable and not subject to campaigns of suppression. I don't intend to spend one second watching and voting on Templates for deletion, but I like to not have to worry about things going wrong there.
I don't think we have consensus that "userboxes which just express opnions are perfectly acceptable". We do have consensus that opinions can be expressed on user pages, but not necessarily via userboxes in the template namespace. It may be too early to judge though.
Steve
I was just expressing my position. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. Showing it may be another matter.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/20/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The question I have is how can we establish a workable procedure to delete destructive user boxes, one that doesn't generate a lot of conflict and wheelwarring. AND make it vary clear that userboxes which just express opinions are perfectly acceptable and not subject to campaigns of suppression. I don't intend to spend one second watching and voting on Templates for deletion, but I like to not have to worry about things going wrong there.
I don't think we have consensus that "userboxes which just express opnions are perfectly acceptable". We do have consensus that opinions can be expressed on user pages, but not necessarily via userboxes in the template namespace. It may be too early to judge though.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
The question I have is how can we establish a workable procedure to delete destructive user boxes, one that doesn't generate a lot of conflict and wheelwarring. AND make it vary clear that userboxes which just express opinions are perfectly acceptable... ...I like to not have to worry about things going wrong there.
Even before establishing that workable procedure, I think there needs to be more consideration of whether we truly want such a procedure. Jimbo's informal wish that people voluntarily remove divisive and polemic userboxes doesn't seem to have done much to defuse the current situation, but the initial few rounds of deletions certainly haven't, either.
At the very least, we need a clearer consensus on what a truly "destructive" user box is, so that we don't have people speedily deleting, say, the UDUIW one.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:19:31 -0500, you wrote:
Jimbo's informal wish that people voluntarily remove divisive and polemic userboxes doesn't seem to have done much to defuse the current situation
I find a significant number of people with the attitude "who's Jimbo to tell me what to do with *my* user page?"
References to WP:OWN don't seem to help much here. Guy (JzG)
Steve Summit wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The question I have is how can we establish a workable procedure to delete destructive user boxes, one that doesn't generate a lot of conflict and wheelwarring. AND make it vary clear that userboxes which just express opinions are perfectly acceptable... ...I like to not have to worry about things going wrong there.
Even before establishing that workable procedure, I think there needs to be more consideration of whether we truly want such a procedure. Jimbo's informal wish that people voluntarily remove divisive and polemic userboxes doesn't seem to have done much to defuse the current situation, but the initial few rounds of deletions certainly haven't, either.
At the very least, we need a clearer consensus on what a truly "destructive" user box is, so that we don't have people speedily deleting, say, the UDUIW one.
I've already clarified my stance on this on the talk page for [[WP:CSD]] (yes, I'm the Commienazi who deleted the UDUIW userbox): I couldn't care less about political userboxes. Whether those go or stay, it matters little to me. What concerns me is the existence of userboxes and categories that exist solely for the purpose of factionalism. To me, the UDUIW stuff fits that definition to a tee, splitting Wikipedians into "us and them". Ideological userboxes (i.e. "This user trusts Jimbo") are arguably factionalist, but not blatantly so, as evidenced by the split in the community over polemical userboxes. However, the only argument put up for keeping userboxes like UDUIW I have seen is "T1 doesn't apply in userspace, undelete and kick that fascist Johnleemk in the balls!" If Jimbo won't make a *clear* and final stand on polemical userboxes (something I wouldn't blame him for not doing), the least he could do is make such a stand on blatantly factionalist ones.
John
John Lee wrote:
What concerns me is the existence of userboxes and categories that exist solely for the purpose of factionalism. To me, the UDUIW stuff fits that definition to a tee, splitting Wikipedians into "us and them".
I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very bad for the project. But given that it has begun to take root, and especially when one of the factional splits is between those for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant, heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things any better.
Steve Summit wrote:
John Lee wrote:
What concerns me is the existence of userboxes and categories that exist solely for the purpose of factionalism. To me, the UDUIW stuff fits that definition to a tee, splitting Wikipedians into "us and them".
I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very bad for the project. But given that it has begun to take root, and especially when one of the factional splits is between those for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant, heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things any better.
When those userboxes are expressing factionalism, then yes, there is a reasonable chance things will be better. It is /not/ good for editors to get the idea that factionalism is the normal state of things on Wikipedia and/or is to be encouraged. Attempting to associate me with rampant or heavyhanded userbox deletors won't wash; I've only deleted two userboxes in my whole life, both of which fit my rather narrow definition of T1.
John
On 2/23/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very bad for the project. But given that it has begun to take root, and especially when one of the factional splits is between those for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant, heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things any better.
Agree. We should start out with statements of what the community wants - "please don't create or use ideological userboxes, they upset people". If, a couple of months from now, people are still doing it, then we can call the gestapo.
Steve
On 2/23/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very bad for the project. But given that it has begun to take root, and especially when one of the factional splits is between those for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant, heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things any better.
Agree. We should start out with statements of what the community wants - "please don't create or use ideological userboxes, they upset people".
The evidence that the community wants that is somewhat patchy
-- geni
Agree. We should start out with statements of what the community wants - "please don't create or use ideological userboxes, they upset people".
The evidence that the community wants that is somewhat patchy
I agree with Geni. I think if we really want to start with what we can agree the community wants, we start with "please don't create userboxes that upset people." That userboxes shouldn't be used for landmine-style trolling ("I'll just take a peek at this user page and... oh gods, that's nauseating") is something everybody is onboard with. But where to draw that line, and whether it can be drawn around entire categories of expression, that's really up for debate. (Especially the odd notion, now being discussed at [[WP:UBP]], that expression of one's ideologies, beliefs, pet peeves, love/hatred of pancakes, etc., is acceptable *unless it's in a tiny box.* Perhaps opinions and points of view overheat and explode when so tightly contained?)
I don't really understand the controversy over people stating their affiliations and beliefs, so long as they're not attacking other people. (I have no problem with banning visible affiliation with groups where such affiliation is an inherent attack on others, such as the Klan, or the Nazi party.) I've worked on several political campaigns, and I'm not offended when I see people with userboxen for the "other" side, let alone when I see boxes supporting, say, the "European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party". (Actually, in full disclosure, I think learning about political parties in other countries is fascinating.) The same goes for religions: unless you're part of the Church of Burning in Effigy the Symbols of Other Religions, it's an interesting showing of Wikipedia's diversity, not an assault on my faith.
I don't think that userboxes that say "This user doesn't like it when admins urinate on Wikiprocess" should be on Wikipedia's user pages, either, but instead of forbidding them and going around stripping them from pages, we really should see those as an opportunity for dialogue. Instead of removing something from the user page, *add* something to the *talk* page. Find out why these users are upset, see if you can engage them in dialogue. Show them that administrators are not part of Wikipedia to strike fear and awe into mortal users by mightily wielding roll-back and blocking powers, but that they're part of the system to make sure everything runs smoothly. Maybe this seems rather Esperanzian of me, but if users are willing to self-identify as being frustrated with part of the process, maybe it's a chance to get people engaged.
Ben
On 2/23/06, Ben Lowe ben.lowe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really understand the controversy over people stating their affiliations and beliefs, so long as they're not attacking other people. (I have no problem with banning visible affiliation with groups where such affiliation is an inherent attack on others, such as the Klan, or the Nazi party.) I've worked on several political campaigns, and I'm not offended
With respect, a large number of people on this list have also provided statements to this effect: "I don't see what the controversy is about. I have no problem with banning userboxes that fall on the correct side of this particular line here". Obviously we don't agree on which line appeals to us all :)
Steve
geni wrote:
On 2/23/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I agree up, down, and sideways that factionalism is very, very bad for the project. But given that it has begun to take root, and especially when one of the factional splits is between those for and against userboxes, it's not at all clear that rampant, heavyhanded deletion of userboxes (which are, after all, merely a symptom of the real problem) will automatically make things any better.
Agree. We should start out with statements of what the community wants - "please don't create or use ideological userboxes, they upset people".
The evidence that the community wants that is somewhat patchy
The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
[1] http://gtmcknight.com/buttons/
Alphax wrote:
The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
Can you cite that evidence?
I was going to edit WP_NOT to say "Wikipedia is not a blog", but that page is official policy and I ought to make sure a change reflects consensus before I make it. Where's the right place to seek that consensus? (And I do mean the right place to seek an accurate consensus, not necessarily just one that agrees with me.)
Steve Summit wrote:
Alphax wrote:
The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
Can you cite that evidence?
I was going to edit WP_NOT to say "Wikipedia is not a blog", but that page is official policy and I ought to make sure a change reflects consensus before I make it. Where's the right place to seek that consensus? (And I do mean the right place to seek an accurate consensus, not necessarily just one that agrees with me.)
Standard practice is to centralise discussion on the talk page of the policy being created/amended, and then link to the discussion from places like [[WP:VP]] and the mailing list.
John
Steve Summit wrote:
Alphax wrote:
The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
Can you cite that evidence?
A userbox is a piece of code which produces something like:
+-------+--------------------------------+ | | | | ! | This user does blah. | | | | +-------+--------------------------------+
- an image or letter on the left hand side, and some text on the right hand side. People are encouraged to plaster them all over their userpages - [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] has a gigantic list of them, sorted by category.
A blog button is a small graphic which looks something like [[Image:Wikipedia button 80x15.png]] - a logo on the left hand side, and some text on the right hand site. People are encouraged to plaster them all over their webpages - [1] has a gigantic list of them, sorted by category; the idea originated at [2]. People have even compliained about the proliferation of the damn things [3].
"Blog buttons" started out as something useful - an alternative to the W3C's default HTML validation logo. Userboxes started as an extension to the Babel templates - first with xx-0 for languages one would not be expected to speak (eg. Latin), then with programming languages, and we know where it went from there.
"The community wants a free webhost and blog buttons to plaster all over their page."
[1] http://gtmcknight.com/buttons/ [2] http://www.antipixel.com/blog/archives/2002/10/22/steal_these_buttons.html [3] http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/25906
On 2/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
The evidence is overwhelmingly that the community (whoever the hell they are) wants a free webhost and "blog buttons" [1] to plaster all over them.
Well then they can toddle off to blogbuttons.com and get them, can't they?