Well, but unlike bumper stickers, you never go out to find support from others based on them.

I think blocs are a bad idea especially if voting in any form is used to make sense of "consensus". Though I don't know where exactly to draw the line between that and asking a few other well-respected users for their opinions at times. There *is* a line there, but it's a fuzzy one.

FF

On 1/3/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

"Tony Sidaway" wrote

...

The scope for abuse of these userboxes has been amply demostrated.

They fulfil no function useful to the encyclopedia that isn't done equally well by simply stating one's affiliations on one's user page. They must die.

They fulfil a function, or you wouldn't be bringing it up. I am against all polarising moves on WP, since I think we need to gather in the centre ground to do the job. (Like not making centre versus center a big deal, for example.)

But I don't think you're going to win on this one. I would quite agree that they are no better than bumper stickers, in many cases.

Charles

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Tony, I agree these are a problem, but I'm not very familiar with them, so I have a question. What is the difference between having a box on your page saying you're e.g. Hindu, and having yourself listed in a Hindu Wikipedians category? Can the boxes be used to group editors by political or religious affiliation in a way that categories can't?

Sarah

One could theoretically do a "Special:Whatlinkshere" on the template page, which would give the same thing as a category would, albeit with some extra pages added in and it wouldn't be displayed in a very aesthetic manner.

Chris

On 1/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

Categorization people by skill or by services provided is a good use of user boxes. But the beliefs and religions userboxes provide a handy telephone book for people interested in pushing a point of view an unscrupulous enough to spam user talk pages or contact likely supporters by email.

The categories must die too.

I agree. I hadn't even thought of that until Kelly mentioned it: that the boxes can be used to group editors via "what links here" and thereby influence editing and votes. Jimbo's point that when we log in we're Wikipedians, http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/035945.html (and not Democrats, pro-lifers, or whatever) could perhaps be written into policy explicitly somewhere, and anything detrimental to that, including some categories, be regarded as a violation of the policy.

Sarah

Ben Emmel wrote:

Why do you not view the religion or viewpoint boxes the same as those with geographical location or language? If I am doing some RC patrol, and notice a questionable edit to a Hindu article, wouldn't a [[Category:Hindu Wikipedians]] be useful? That way, I can search out a user to look into the edit. Same thing goes for an edit to an article on Communism: I don't claim to be an expert on that subject, so shouldn't I be able to search out an editor using [[Category:Communist Wikipedians]]?

:-D Interesting choce of example! Would people be on that list because they saw themselves as communist, or because others saw them as communist?. Those two sub-groups are likely to look at the concept of communism quite differently.

Ec

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/3/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Tony, I agree these are a problem, but I'm not very familiar with them, so I have a question. What is the difference between having a box on your page saying you're e.g. Hindu, and having yourself listed in a Hindu Wikipedians category?

None. It is the categorization that is the problem, facilitated to some extent by the convenience of userboxes (the ease of typing {{user bigendinan}} compared to "[[Category: Bigendian wikipedians]]).

Categorization people by skill or by services provided is a good use of user boxes. But the beliefs and religions userboxes provide a handy telephone book for people interested in pushing a point of view an unscrupulous enough to spam user talk pages or contact likely supporters by email.

The categories must die too.

But people have been doing that all along by making lists of like minded users on their user pages, all watching the same articles, setting up WikiProjects, etc. I think the difference is that the number of editors is now so large that some special-interest topics can now have 20-30 who share a POV, many of whom are new and/or have never had enough contact with the generalists to pick up the right habits of thought. The userboxes look more like a symptom rather than a cause.

It would be interesting to have some way in which specialists can't form a "consensus" completely unilaterally, in the way that university departments bring in members of other departments for tenure evaluations and the like, trying to prevent inbreeding.

Stan

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

But people have been doing that all along by making lists of like minded users on their user pages, all watching the same articles, setting up WikiProjects, etc.

No. Wikiprojects must be neutral. All article space edits must be neutral. If people have been doing the things you describe to promote their viewpoints, then they also are breaking the neutrality policy. I just object to giving the pushers powerful Wikipedia facilities to pursue their counter-policy activities.

A WikiProject has a list of participants, just like a category, and the page is typically on participant's watchlists. It's always been easy to summon helpers by posting on the project's talk page. Of course, we only use this power for *good* purposes, not for, say, enforcing an oddball naming convention, wink wink nudge nudge.

If there are hordes of invading POV-pushers hooking up with each other, that's the problem to deal with. They're not going to be encouraged or deterred by whether they have to type 15 vs 30 characters to do it. Mechanism is not policy.

Stan

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

If there are hordes of invading POV-pushers hooking up with each other, that's the problem to deal with. They're not going to be encouraged or deterred by whether they have to type 15 vs 30 characters to do it. Mechanism is not policy.

What is "mechanism is not policy" supposed to mean? We use mechanisms to enforce policy, both hard policy and soft policy. It's perfectly reasonable for us to make it more difficult to push a point of view because we don't want people doing that.

Kelly

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

We have a settled policy that users can do pretty much anything they like on their user pages and subpages, within the bounds of civility.

Absolutely not. Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service.

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

We have a settled policy that users can do pretty much anything they like on their user pages and subpages, within the bounds of civility.

That is plainly false.

Kelly

Kelly Martin wrote:

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

We have a settled policy that users can do pretty much anything they like on their user pages and subpages, within the bounds of civility.

That is plainly false.

True enough, it's a guideline and not a policy, and I oversimplified by not listing all of the caveats. But do you think we have a policy disallowing POV advocacy on user pages? If so, where would I find it?

Stan

Tony Sidaway wrote:

[...]

I can say how nasty I think that Mr Tulkinghorn is and what a rotten job I think Mr Walpole is doing of running the country, and I can express my belief that the Tay Bridge disaster was caused by an unsound central girder.

Agreed.

However the caveats "within reason" and "avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia" are important. You can't do "pretty much anything...within the bounds of civility." I'd say that adding my web page to a category of "Wikipedians who think Walpole is a rotter" probably oversteps the margin by a wide mark by providing Wikipedia with a ready-to-wear voting kit for anti-Walpolians who secretly blame the scoundrel for the lamentable state of a Scottish bridge and the loss of many lives.

I guess this is the crux of a philosophical difference then, because my immediate reaction was to shrug; text on a user page vs the same text in the title of a user category. Would [[User:Tony Sidaway/list of Wikipedians who think Walpole is a rotter]] be an acceptable subpage or not?

Stan

On Jan 4, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

We have a settled policy that users can do pretty much anything they like on their user pages and subpages, within the bounds of civility.

That is plainly false.

Indeed. We have not so much settled on that policy as failed to adequately enforce the actual policy.

-Phil

Kelly Martin wrote:

Several of the editors most stridently defending userboxes are editors who have few, if any, article edits. I looked at one user's contributions today where that editor has edited virtually nothing other than his own user page, various user boxes in the template space, and the userbox project page.

What purpose is served by this editor's participation in Wikipedia? Does this person really qualify as a "Wikipedian"?

What about the other people who use them?

Chris

On 1/3/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/3/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Several of the editors most stridently defending userboxes are editors who have few, if any, article edits. I looked at one user's contributions today where that editor has edited virtually nothing other than his own user page, various user boxes in the template space, and the userbox project page.

What purpose is served by this editor's participation in Wikipedia? Does this person really qualify as a "Wikipedian"?

This is an increasing problem. Some of the users who cause most trouble do very little editing of articles, and trying to deal with their trolling on talk pages can be soul-destroying. Yet block one of them and their friends scream blue murder, aided and abetted by certain admins who should know better. It's something we need to get a grip on because it's going to keep getting worse, and eventually they'll start affecting policy.

Unfortunately, some of these admins *don't* know better. Recently I've seen people become admins with thousands of edits, but under a hundred Talk: page comments, and others who became admins with as few as 16 people voting for them. People who have had so little interaction with other Wikipedians, or who are so unknown that there aren't even 20 Wikipedians willing to vouch for them, are simply not members of the Wikipedia community in any meaningful way. It is not surprising, then, when they act in ways which display an ignorance of, or go against Wikipedia norms (e.g. unblocking blocked users without even first discussing the block with the blocking admin). The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create a website where people can set up really cool user pages, or engage in wheel wars. Nor is its purpose to create a website where one can endlessly pontificate on the actions of other editors, and devise more and more policies to control their actions in increasingly bizarre ways. Rather, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a great encyclopedia.

Jay.

On 1/3/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

Exactly right. Almost every block is at serious risk now of being reversed by an admin who's never read the blocking policy, has had very little interaction with the community, and who got elected with under 20 votes, but decides he quite liked something the blocked user once posted, and so therefore he has to unblock,

That has always happened. Back when I was inforceing the 3RR I quite regalry had blocks pulled. I never really viewed it as a problem

leading to wheel wars, endless explanations of the most obvious things on WP:AN/I, and a consequent unwillingness on the part of other admins to block troublemakers until they become serious problems (and even then it can be difficult: see the Marsden situation).

We've always tended to avoid blocking people untill they become a serious problem.

Unfortunately, part of this problem is fueled by the philosophy that adminship is "no big deal," which if Jimbo reads this thread, I ask that he consider commenting on somewhere, because I've lost count of the number of support votes I've seen quoting it, leading to yet another unknown and possibly clueless admin being promoted. Combine poor admins with hundreds of users who are turning Wikipedia into a social club, and you have a giant mess.

Sarah

I had to have a notice put up to request wider interest back when I applied. When did that last happen? -- geni

On 1/3/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:

I'm not sure how this whining about new admins is helpful. Rather than stirring up bad feeling amongst admins, perhaps you could do something more productive about the situation, such as asking new admins to explain their actions, voting oppose to people you think are unfamiliar with admin policy, etc.?

I do as you advise quite frequently but it makes no difference, and there are only 24 hours in a day; to do any more I would have to, like them, stop editing the encyclopedia completely. These e-mails are part of the attempt to, as you say, "do something more productive about the situation," so it's somewhat discouraging to have you dismiss it as "whining."

Sarah

slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I was wondering why you were being aggressive, Chris, but now I realize you're User:Talrias, the admin who reduced Marsden's block twice, even though, as I believe you admitted, you were unfamiliar with the situation. Without wanting to get into a row with you, I must admit that that was the kind of incident that has caused me concern, though by no means the only one. I want to stress that I'm not alleging bad faith, but I feel that admins have to be able to trust each other's judgement, even when we may disagree with it, so that blocks aren't constantly being done and undone; and that speaks directly to the issue of how we elect new admins, because if we want to trust their judgement, and have them trust ours, there has to be a shared philosophy or vision, and that requires a minimum amount of community interaction before they're promoted. Without community interaction, there's no respect for the community. But with too much community interaction, there might be less respect for the encyclopedia. So electing admins who have the right balance of edits is a tricky business, a very "big deal" in my view.

I wasn't being agressive because it was you, please don't think that. I would have said the same, whoever made the point you did (and in fact, I've replied in kind to other people who have said similar things). I just don't agree with what you're saying.

Yes, I am unfamiliar with Marsden's situation. The only contact I have had with him was a question he asked me on my ArbCom candidacy statement, my reply, and a follow-up comment he made. The question he left was perfectly civil, and his follow-up comment was a bit "cabal theoryish" but didn't contain any personal attacks or rude comments. That's my background experience with him. My actions on his blocking weren't at all related to this, in fact I did not recognise the name from my ArbCom candidacy until afterwards.

I explained my reasons for reducing the length of Marsden's block at the time - they were, and still are, that I am perfectly willing to accept a time-limited block of a user from another admin. Admins are chosen by the community and are on the whole a pretty responsible bunch. I'm trust them to block when appropriate and when blocks are inappropriate. However, what I don't do, is assume that when an admin blocks permanently, the person being blocked actually deserves a permanent block. If someone is going to be indefinitely banned from contributing to Wikipedia, that is indeed something. I hope that Wikipedia will be around in 10 years' time, and a number of indefinitely banned people will have matured significantly and may consider contributing to Wikipedia, but won't because of immature behaviour on their parts 10 years previously. Yes, one contributor to Wikipedia is not going to make a significant difference, but I think we should be fair with our blocks and bans. I don't think banning indefinitely is fair, but if we're going to do it, I think it should come from the Arbitration Committee, which despite its flaws does look over each bit of evidence, gives the person a chance to explain their actions and typically comes to a fair decision when blocking annoying contributors.

I've heard it argued that the Arbitration Committee would come to the same decision anyway, so what's the point in hearing the case in the first place? I respectfully disagree with this point of view. An Arbitration Committee case typically has evidence attached which makes it possible for uninvolved bystanders to review and form their own decisions on the merits of the ban. Blocking by community typically comes with few pieces of evidence which makes it more difficult to form a fair opinion. I found the argument on the admins' noticeboard for limiting the block duration more persuasive than having an indefinite ban, so I shortened the duration of the ban, rather than removing it completely - as I respect that other admins have already blocked him for disruptive behaviour. I'm quite willing to take this on good faith. I just don't like the idea that someone can be blocked indefinitely by an admin, especially since Marsden's talk page has hardly any reasoning for the block, nor is the block reason for him particularly descriptive - it now says "Snowspinner was right". I want more than this. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Thanks for giving me the chance to expand my previous comments on this,

Chris

Ray Saintonge wrote:

We could ask, "Give an example where you were able to build consensus with someone that you initially disagreed with." I'm convinced that this kind of skill is among the most important.

Not everyone gets into situations where that sort of disagreement comes up. I don't think, in the last two years, I've ever had a situation that would meet your criteria. Firstly, most of the articles I edit significantly are ones I'm interested in, and tend to be too obscure to get controversy on. Secondly, even more of my edits are spelling, grammar, reformatting, wikifying, merges, disambiguations, redirects, very recently categorization... etc. Thirdly, the rest of what I do is quick [rollback] of blatant vandalism that there really isn't a consensus to build for.

"Can fix things after they've gotten into a mess" restricts your set to people who get into messes.

-- Jake Nelson

On 1/3/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:

slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

Exactly right. Almost every block is at serious risk now of being reversed by an admin who's never read the blocking policy, has had very little interaction with the community, and who got elected with under 20 votes, but decides he quite liked something the blocked user once posted, and so therefore he has to unblock, leading to wheel wars, endless explanations of the most obvious things on WP:AN/I, and a consequent unwillingness on the part of other admins to block troublemakers until they become serious problems (and even then it can be difficult: see the Marsden situation). Unfortunately, part of this problem is fueled by the philosophy that adminship is "no big deal," which if Jimbo reads this thread, I ask that he consider commenting on somewhere, because I've lost count of the number of support votes I've seen quoting it, leading to yet another unknown and possibly clueless admin being promoted. Combine poor admins with hundreds of users who are turning Wikipedia into a social club, and you have a giant mess.

I'm not sure how this whining about new admins is helpful. Rather than stirring up bad feeling amongst admins, perhaps you could do something more productive about the situation, such as asking new admins to explain their actions, voting oppose to people you think are unfamiliar with admin policy, etc.?

I, in general, don't see how complaining about inexperience among new admins, is going to give them the experience necessary. I think it should stop, and more productive behaviour should start.

Chris, considering that you were the person who wheel-warred on Marsden's blocking (Marsden was eventually banned by Jimbo), while admitting you did not know the details of the case, and incorrectly claiming that permanent bans could only be applied by the Arbitration Committee (though the policy quite clearly says otherwise), I'm not surprised you reacted negatively to those comments. Nevertheless, this list *is* the place to discuss these things.

Jay.

I agree with the sentiment that all user boxes that don't serve an actual purpose should be nuked, or at the very least, userfied. This includes everything on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny]], [[/Other]], [[/Userboxes]], [[/Emoticons]] and many others. Wikipedia is not Myspace, Facebook, or a social site. It is an encyclopedia

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that userboxes for languages, knowledge of certain topics, or Wikiprojects can be useful, not only for identification purposes, but also for finding help on certain topics. It gives a nice visual clue when looking for editors within certain genres, and sometimes are a bit more wieldy then a list or category.

-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake

What purpose is served by this editor's participation in Wikipedia? Does this person really qualify as a "Wikipedian"?

You can ask the same question of "social members" of tennis, bridge, or music clubs. Ultimately their benefit, if any, is indirect. Maybe they donate, maybe they encourage other users, maybe they resolve disputes, maybe they participate on mailing lists, maybe (as suggested) their user box edits are helping others.

No, I don't really think so either. But they're probably not more harmful than someone that makes some well-meaning but factually incorrect errors to a wide range of articles.

Steve

We need to deal with non-contributing users who suck up our resources in some sensible way, yes. But what's been done so far discounts contributing users' views too, and that is not to be done lightly. We don't even have consensus among admins on what to do!

SCZenz

On 1/3/06, Brian brian@bhaws.com wrote:

...

Meanwhile, many users *like* userboxes, silly though they may be. It keeps them happy, which means they stay and make more productive edits. Conversely, if we tell all those users their views don't count and they should stuff it, we will lose editors. (I've already seen some leaving

over

...

the current mess.)

...

The Wikipedia community exists to write the encyclopedia, no other reason; but if we alienate a large section of the community, the encyclopedia won't

b>e written nearly as well.

...

SCZenz

I think that a lot of the problem has come from the fact that a lot of these new users spend very little time actually editing the encyclopedia. I did a random scan of contributions of some of the people who signed the RFC and found a lot of them were not actively editing in article space. It's no surprise that they don't have a complete understanding of how it works. There's a lot of people involved against Kelly's RFC that are both not regular editors of Wikipedia and are causing a great deal of disruption.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:

On the other hand, many people don't care about the userboxes, but are instead upset over the way with which their deletion has been handled. More deletions at this point may solve the userbox problem, but not the community interaction problem.

If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that unproductive members of the community do less harm than trying to take away their toys does. You end up alienating a lot more people than you thought you would.

Ryan

slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I'm not sure that's true, Ryan. They do a lot of harm, it's just usually less dramatic.

Show me the evidence!

Chris

On 1/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

They certainly do less harm than this whole ordeal has. Some people just can't stand to have anything on Wikipedia that disagrees with their principles, and they're willing to go to war over it. This is a great example. The war is more damaging than the thing you're going to war over. We all should really just call it quits on this one.

These unproductive users cause harm every day on hundreds of talk pages and articles, editing carelessly, insulting people, looking for ways to cause trouble, coming back with sock puppets if blocked, getting friends from outside Wikipedia to join in revert wars. The user box issue is just the first time they've joined forces, and it's a good thing in a way that it's happening over this and not over some policy change they try to force through, which will happen soon enough if we don't get a grip.

Sarah

On 1/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/4/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

...

These unproductive users cause harm every day on hundreds of talk pages and articles, editing carelessly, insulting people, looking for ways to cause trouble, coming back with sock puppets if blocked, getting friends from outside Wikipedia to join in revert wars. The user box issue is just the first time they've joined forces, and it's a good thing in a way that it's happening over this and not over some policy change they try to force through, which will happen soon enough if we don't get a grip.

You're saying that people who play with userboxes do this? You'd better ban me from the project right away; I'm a scourge to Wikipedia, apparently. Congrats, you've just alienated one more productive editor.

I'm not talking about the user boxes, Ryan, I'm talking about users who treat Wikipedia as a social club and not an encyclopedia. The user-box issue is the first time I've seen some of them act en masse. My point was that I'm glad we've seen it over a relatively minor issue (though I feel bad for the targets of it), because it might prompt some action before it gets to the point where they're dictating policy. Just because some of the user-box editors, if I can call them that, make few edits to the encyclopedia doesn't mean none do, or even that most don't, obviously.

Sarah

Brian wrote: <snip>

And relationships are being formed right now in the group of new-ish users that have been brought together over user boxes that will indeed result in attempts to shout policies through. Not to be melodramatic but I really think we're at a crossroads here.

The increase in usage has brought a lot of new users in, some of whom have been active in forum-like sites where participation and acceptable ways of communicating are much different.....

I had been active on internet forums for several years before joining Wikipedia, so I had some idea of netiquette and such before I starting trying to influence things. I suspect many users have been active in online communities far longer than I have, back to the Usenet days. But what we are getting now are internet n00bs (and they are well deserving of that term) turning up and acting like it.

But because we are the nice people that we are, we assume good faith and don't bite the newbies, and these people, the truly clueless who have just discovered the internet and think that Wikipedia is just another online community, we *aren't* deploying the clue-by-fours, we are letting these people integrate and suddenly there are so many that you can't tell who is and isn't a n00b until they do something stupid (like passing RfA and unblocking the vilest trolls).

Now, I am confident that there *are* people who have a clue out there, and that they *are* getting this grand encyclopedia of ours written, but maybe we need to go back to basics: remember what Wikipedia is Not (in all namespaces, not just main) and get on with why we are all supposed to be here.

On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

There have actually been attempts to pass such laws, and in some cases they've even been passed. Such laws are unconstitutional in the United States, however, and so they don't last.

Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, however, and does not have to worry about restrictions on advertisement, personal promotion, etc. being found unconstitutional.

This isn't a question of constitutionality. It's a question of, I don't know, respect? This thing seems a lot to me like the Wikipedia Chess Championship (which I note at least one Arb is playing in), which was also VfD'd on the grounds that it had nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. That VFD failed, incidentally, on the grounds that the project wasn't hurting anything and it was a fun way for users to cool their heels. Userboxes are like that- and you might have gotten the same kind of useful discussion, if you had bothered to discuss it with others before making your decision that the userboxes must die. (Is this an example of IAR gone too far?)

On 1/4/06, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:

I'm not talking about the user boxes, Ryan, I'm talking about users who treat Wikipedia as a social club and not an encyclopedia. The user-box issue is the first time I've seen some of them act en masse. My point was that I'm glad we've seen it over a relatively minor issue (though I feel bad for the targets of it), because it might prompt some action before it gets to the point where they're dictating policy. Just because some of the user-box editors, if I can call them that, make few edits to the encyclopedia doesn't mean none do, or even that most don't, obviously.

If that's the case, then the problem is the users, not the userboxes. If you have examples of people who use Wikipedia as *nothing* but another sort of "Myspace", then I think they ought to be kindly escorted off the project. But as it happens, I've witnessed nothing of this phenomenon you are describing, and I strongly suspect this is another incidence of someone thinking "It seems to me this could cause a problem, so I will react to it as if that problem is actually occurring", with or without actual evidence.

And even if you're right, and there is an underground community of people who use Wikipedia for no constructive purpose, this is very far from the best way of dealing with them. In deleting these userboxes, you've alienated a lot of legitimate users, including people who never used the userboxes anyway.

But all that is really beside the point. That there is even a debate about this is somewhat exasperating to me. Is this really worth it? Wouldn't it be better to admit that Wikipedia is imperfect but that trying to win every battle will just drain everyone of all their energy? Most of the people you're fighting against are good folk who belong here, and want to have a little toy to play with in the mean time. Instead of reading this email, you could be, I don't know, reverting vandalism, or doing fact-checking in existing articles. Which is more helpful to Wikipedia?

Ryan

On 1/3/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

The difference is that the chess tournament didn't violate copyright, and when told to stop violating copyright, scream that its free speech rights were being violated.

The userbox aficianadoes are.

Kelly

Judging from some of the images I've seen you delete, you have absolutely no idea what does and doesn't violate copyright.

Anthony

On 1/3/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:

Say an article contained an image not legally usable in Wikipedia. The appropriate action in that case is to delete the image, and remove it from the article, not to delete the article altogether. How, in any way, shape, or form, is the appropriate action for dealing with an image not legally usable in a template to delete the template altogether? The appropriate action is to delete the image and remove it from the template (it can be replaced with simple text or a free image).

One gets tired of doing that over and over again. Zach and I spent months fighting with these people over our policy about the use of unlicensed media on user pages. They simply refuse to listen; they are convinced that they have the right to do whatever they want without regard to policy, common sense, or really anything else.

Kelly

Kelly

Please don't use the copyright issue as a crutch — the reason you deleted the templates wasn't because of the images, it was because you dislike them. It's perfectly acceptable for you to have an opinion on userboxes. What's unacceptable is using your administrative powers to delete those userboxes without any clear consensus. I'm okay with skipping process sometimes if it's unnecessarily cumbersome and there's clear consensus, but that is *obviously* not the case here.

-- Regards, [[en:User:Bbatsell]]

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Kelly Martin wrote:

On 1/3/06, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:

...

Say an article contained an image not legally usable in Wikipedia. The appropriate action in that case is to delete the image, and remove it from the article, not to delete the article altogether. How, in any way, shape, or form, is the appropriate action for dealing with an image not legally usable in a template to delete the template altogether? The appropriate action is to delete the image and remove it from the template (it can be replaced with simple text or a free image).

One gets tired of doing that over and over again. Zach and I spent months fighting with these people over our policy about the use of unlicensed media on user pages. They simply refuse to listen; they are convinced that they have the right to do whatever they want without regard to policy, common sense, or really anything else.

Tacticswise, I think it would be better to spank the bulk of the non-legit images (untagged, unsourced, and bogus fair use) before tackling "popular" images. Not only do you get to say "everything else is clean, these are the last ones left", but you can get the combined gaze of the 100-odd image cops to back you up.

Stan

Kelly Martin wrote:

The difference is that the chess tournament didn't violate copyright, and when told to stop violating copyright, scream that its free speech rights were being violated.

The userbox aficianadoes are.

Way to assume good faith.

On 1/4/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

...

The difference is that the chess tournament didn't violate copyright, and when told to stop violating copyright, scream that its free speech rights were being violated.

The userbox aficianadoes are.

If you're deleting userboxes because they are copyright violations, then fine. But what I've been hearing is that you're deleting them because they're a waste of time and cause Wikipedia editors to factionalize by POV. Not fine.

Ryan

Userboxes as a whole are unlikely to be a copyvio. Some of the images in them may be.

-- geni

On 1/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

If you're deleting userboxes because they are copyright violations, then fine. But what I've been hearing is that you're deleting them because they're a waste of time and cause Wikipedia editors to factionalize by POV. Not fine.

Then you are listening to people who are not telling the truth.

Kelly

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 1/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

If you're deleting userboxes because they are copyright violations, then fine. But what I've been hearing is that you're deleting them because they're a waste of time and cause Wikipedia editors to factionalize by POV. Not fine.

Then you are listening to people who are not telling the truth.

To clarify, *I* am the one deleting userboxes because they enable serious disruption of Wikipedia.

Maybe we should just disable anonymous edits and require face-to-face meetings with Board members to enable account creation. Surely they are also enabling serious disruption of Wikipedia? I mean, we've disabled anon article creation, we're deleting userboxes and crucifying the users who support that, why not take the next logical steps?

On 1/3/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

...

Last month one editor used userbox information to locate dozens of people who shared his religious persuasion in an overt attempt to destroy the consensual decision-making process of Wikipedia.

Was this editor successful?

Actually I believe there were a number of such cases. The creator of the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia page used talk page spamming to try to get this page kept. His wording, apparently placed on over 40 user talk pages, was as follows:

"Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. [[Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia]] has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. The link to the voting page is here: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia]]"

The page in question was overtly intended to "nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories"

Out of eleven keep votes, nine were from those who were solicited. Some of those contacted may have voted to delete (at least one did to my knowledge).

You really ought to learn to pick your battles. Yes, some people do things on Wikipedia that are less than entirely productive. But some of these things boost community morale and connect people with each other in fun ways. Yes, in an ideal world, we would spend all our time working on the encyclopedia and doing nothing else. But tha door swings both ways. In that world, you would spend all your time working on the encyclopedia, not launching a crusade over trivial crap like this.

Even more importantly, we're not paid. I'd be pissed off if I ran a company building an encyclopaedia and my employees spent 8 hours a day drawing silly pictures on the walls, and only half an hour on Friday evenings working on the task. But if they're volunteers, and they're working from home, drawing on their walls - what do I care? I'm getting half an hour of free work a week here.

Steve

On 1/3/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

Somebody compared userboxes to bumper stickers, and I think it's very apt. While we may dislike seeing cars covered with bumper stickers, we don't (usually :-) ) try to pass laws regulating the number or type of bumper stickers on a car, nor do we try to outlaw the printing of bumper stickers.

There have actually been attempts to pass such laws, and in some cases they've even been passed. Such laws are unconstitutional in the United States, however, and so they don't last.

Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, however, and does not have to worry about restrictions on advertisement, personal promotion, etc. being found unconstitutional.

Kelly

On 1/3/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, we can certainly illegalize any userboxes we like. The question is, are the productive users we're going to lose (and there are some) if we crack down on userboxes worth it? And who should decide?

We may lose them, but they'll be welcome on livejournal and myspace. I cannot imagine losing any serious contributor just because we say "no, we don't allow people to create userboxes that place them into categories by point of view--it promotes factionalism and has in the past resulted in serious attempts to subvert consensus."

On 1/4/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:

Tony Sidaway wrote:

...

We may lose them, but they'll be welcome on livejournal and myspace. I cannot imagine losing any serious contributor just because we say "no, we don't allow people to create userboxes that place them into categories by point of view--it promotes factionalism and has in the past resulted in serious attempts to subvert consensus."

I think if people are going to leave over this it'll be because they hate the idea of admins taking matters into their own hands rather than discussing it first.

When the house is on fire, you don't hold a discussion. It's been suggested elsewhere that the usera engaged in this fad are not regular editors. They can go back to wherever they came from.

On 1/4/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

When the house is on fire, you don't hold a discussion. It's been suggested elsewhere that the usera engaged in this fad are not regular editors. They can go back to wherever they came from.

The house isn't on fire.

Have you examined the figures? This is a massive growth. Political and belief-based userboxes have increased tenfold since the end of November. A database check tells me that of our 3500 or so userboxes, 1500 were created in December, and a further 250 have been created in the first three days of January alone. This is a serious push to reform Wikipedia as a network of users linked according to beliefs and preferences that can be accessed by a point-of-view pusher at the touch of a button.

The house is on fire.

On 1/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

This is a serious push to reform Wikipedia as a network of users linked according to beliefs and preferences that can be accessed by a point-of-view pusher at the touch of a button.

This isn't a conspiracy, it's tinfoil hattery. I'll believe the conpsiracy theories when I see a conspirator.

Ryan

On 1/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

I make no claims about conspiracy. The purpose of creating a userbox is to permit users of a certain type (originally, with certain useful skills) to be quickly identified. The purpose of creating a political or religious userbox is to enable users with common beliefs to be identified quickly.

Evidence?

Of the userboxes listed on the beiefs page, over 90% were created since December 1, and a substantial number of those were created within the past couple of weeks, so it's definitely a push.

Not really AYBABTU photoshops went from minimal to balistic in a very short space of time. I don't think it is legit to claim there was a push to create them. -- geni

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/4/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

When the house is on fire, you don't hold a discussion. It's been suggested elsewhere that the usera engaged in this fad are not regular editors. They can go back to wherever they came from.

The house isn't on fire.

Have you examined the figures? This is a massive growth. Political and belief-based userboxes have increased tenfold since the end of November. A database check tells me that of our 3500 or so userboxes, 1500 were created in December, and a further 250 have been created in the first three days of January alone. This is a serious push to reform Wikipedia as a network of users linked according to beliefs and preferences that can be accessed by a point-of-view pusher at the touch of a button.

The house is on fire.

OK, so I have about 19,000 pages on my watchlist, and review it about twice a day. The only trend I've noticed since November is a slight uptick in anons engaging in subtle vandalism instead of the "Joey is gay" type, and some cases of "stacked" multiple vandalism by different anons - both worrying trends, since they take longer to analyze. I'm also seeing vandalism staying in, not for the boasted minutes, but hours or days, which I'm discovering by reviewing anons' contrib history further back (many articles are apparently not on any active watchlist).

I have yet to see any userbox-facilitated trashing of articles.

Stan

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/4/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

I have yet to see any userbox-facilitated trashing of articles.

I also have yet to notice any userbox-related vandalism. Why do you mention the fact since it has not been suggested?

"Trashing" was not the best choice of word. What I meant was that none of the normal edits of my watched articles by logged-in users seems to have been part of a campaign by users connecting via userbox. User names unfamiliar to me all seem to be editing in good faith, if not always as competently as I would like...

What I have noticed, without even breaking a sweat, is three separate attempts to enlist, by talk page spamming, groups of editors unknown to the person doing the spamming, who has (helpfully for my case) explicitly stated that he's approaching the person in question, *because of his self-identified persuasion*. This is obviously always unacceptable, but here we are providing the pushers with powerful technology to enable them to do so.

People unknown to me are always pinging me on my talk page, trying to get me to look at an article, weigh in on a dispute, relicense all my text, etc.

It's useful to know that there have been three attempts to use userboxes for spamming, so I appreciate your bringing it to the mailing list for attention, and we should talk about where we want this to go. Maybe it's a fad, maybe it's the next step of evolution. At this point it just seems like it's too soon to tell.

Stan

On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

On the downside, it seems that we do have a number of rather ignorant editors messing about in template space.

Good. The result is that in time we will have a number of highly skilled editors doing things in the template namespace.

-- geni

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal of the project.

Jay.

This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of the wikipedia.

you've been on Wikipedia for how many years now? I'm going to have to assume this is hyperbole.

Jay.

Please re-read what you wrote instead.

Also, I stopped using my name / providing personal details on this project after a particularly offensive statement was made on this list regarding my step-son. I have realised there are too many bad people here, and too few measures taken against them for me to feel comfortable or safe being less than anonymous. Nothing personal, but please refer to me by my user name. Thanks,

Sam Spade

On 1/7/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:

*Jay Converse* said

a new editor come in and join a discussion with old editors can provide a fresh point of view..."

Since Wikipedia has an aversion to becoming "rule bound", of course personality is going to win out over process & policies; hence the "ideological cliques". And most users don't know beans about the ideology they've inherited, they just mime others who profess to have some understanding.

nobs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Well, in that case, new editors can shift the clique balance of power, to keep on using that line of thought. Either way, I think the goal should be to attract new users to help shape the site rather than kicking people out.

-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On 1/7/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:

...

Well, in that case, new editors can shift the clique balance of power,

to

...

keep on using that line of thought. Either way, I think the goal should

be

...

to attract new users to help shape the site rather than kicking people

out.

...

-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

Or making them feel so unhappy and powerless that they leave.

Sam Spade _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

That's worse, in my opinion. [[WP:NOT]] a high school.

-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Spade

The meta issue here is mentorship vrs. newbie biting, and I fear too much of the latter and far too little of the former are occuring.

Sam, I agree with you on this point, but may I just say that your responses are coming up in my Outlook mail reader in such a fashion that the message to which you are replying is presented as if it were original text, and that this is confusing. I don't know how gmail presents your posts; presumably it isn't a problem for you to distinguish between quoted and original text.

I used to use gmail for this list, and it is superb for list traffic, but I'm now using my "basic" email address as a sign of good faith, so I can't easily check how your posts look in gmail.

Peter

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway

When the house is on fire, you don't hold a discussion.

We're talking about userboxes here. These are used by a few editors to display their pride in their beliefs and other personal aspects. Issues over images and copyright can be resolved. And so what if like-minded people try to collectivise their individual powers?

None of this amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia, nor is it "the house burning down", or "the sky falling down" or anything else. It's just normal human behaviour. If it makes editors happy, then smile and accept it as part of building a community.

What I'm concerned about is the attitude that seems to be taken by some in this discussion is that userbox users are somehow less worthy than other Wikipedians.

Peter (Skyring)

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Carbonite

On 1/4/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

What I'm concerned about is the attitude that seems to be taken by some in this discussion is that userbox users are somehow

less worthy

...

than other Wikipedians.

Have you taken a look at the article space edits of some of the loudest defenders of userboxes? Would you like getting lectured about consensus and Wikipedia policy by someone with 20 article edits? If someone isn't here to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, then I suppose they would be less worthy.

That's *some* userboxers, not *all* userboxers, wouldn't you agree?

As for being lectured by people who don't know what they are talking about, I usually find this an excuse for a good guffaw, rather than something to grump about.

May I suggest that 20 edits from an unpaid volunteer is 20 edits that we wouldn't have had otherwise, and that encouraging them to do more might be a more productive avenue than lambasting them. But then again, you've been around longer than I have, and who am I to lecture you?

Pete, most humbly

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Carbonite

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Carbonite

On 1/4/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

...

What I'm concerned about is the attitude that seems to

be taken by

...

...

...

some in this discussion is that userbox users are somehow

less worthy

...

than other Wikipedians.

Have you taken a look at the article space edits of some of the loudest defenders of userboxes? Would you like getting lectured about consensus and Wikipedia policy by someone with 20 article edits? If someone isn't here to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, then I suppose they would be less worthy.

That's *some* userboxers, not *all* userboxers, wouldn't you agree?

Of course. Any userbox that focuses on a user's skills (Babel boxes) or expertise should be encouraged.

A "userboxer" being someone who uses a userbox.

...

As for being lectured by people who don't know what they

are talking

...

about, I usually find this an excuse for a good guffaw, rather than something to grump about.

They'd be more guffaws if a good portion of these users weren't trying to burn valuable contributors at the stake.

I'm not sure why you are treating them seriously.

...

May I suggest that 20 edits from an unpaid volunteer is 20

edits that

...

we wouldn't have had otherwise, and that encouraging them

to do more

...

might be a more productive avenue than lambasting them. But then again, you've been around longer than I have, and who am I

to lecture you?

If they only made those 20 edits, then I'd agree, but many are making 10x that many edits complaining about their toys being taken away.

Again, why not encourage them to be more productive instead of lambasting them?

My comment wasn't about having an attitude of "I've been here longer, I know better!", it's about users who view Wikipedia primarily as a social club where they occasionally edit an article. In my opinion, someone who makes a vast majority of their edits to their user space probably is less worthy than those who actually work to improve the encyclopedia.

There are better social clubs available on the net. If socialising is truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere soon enough. But so long as they aren't actually doing any harm, then why not praise their constructive efforts, instead of trying to chase them away? The more we make Wikipedia a cheerful co-operative community instead of a battleground, the better for all concerned.

Peter (Skyring)

On 1/5/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal of the project.

Jay.

Arguments about fair use are fairly common in pretty much every context. Most people get it after you explain it a few times (and the firefox userbox people appear to have given up after comercial use was mentioned).

-- geni

On 1/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:

On 1/5/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote: But so long as

...

they aren't actually doing any harm, then why not praise their constructive efforts, instead of trying to chase them away? The more we make

Wikipedia

...

...

a cheerful co-operative community instead of a battleground, the better

for

...

...

all concerned.

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the

time

...

and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the

goal

...

of the project.

Jay.

Not really. Arguing about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy tends to make for better, more well thought out, and more clearly documented policies.

If the longtime editors "who actually know something about policy" don't understand *why* those policies are in place, then maybe they should learn this, or maybe the policy itself needs to be re-examined. If things have been well thought out and documented, then pointing the newbie to a link which explains it all should take very little time, and will create a better contributor.

Anthony

On the flipside of that, I think that having a new editor come in and join a discussion with old editors can provide a fresh point of view on a policy. Eventually people get so used to a policy that they've basically had it surgically implanted into their minds, and there's not much anyone can do to change their view on it. If a brand new user comes in and says "That policy's stupid!" and provides good reasons for why it is, they can help influence the policy in a more level-handed direction. The challenge for them, admittedly, is getting anyone to listen to them.

-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On 1/5/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

You're very generous with other people's time! We have "contributors" with reading-comprehension problems, for whom pointing at a page does no good, we have some who are simply not smart enough to be of any help, we have some whose social skills are too limited even to manage basic spelling fixes without driving everybody else up the wall.

No one's forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't feel like explaining policy to a newbie, you don't have to. Of course, good policy should be rather obvious anyway.

While I'm generally in favor of broad latitude for user behavior, there are some people who are simply net negatives, and it is in our interest to get them to go away. I've come to steer away from most of that kind of debating, because the encyclopedia benefits more from me applying myself in areas where I have specialized skills, knowledge, and reference sources. But sooner or later we're going to have to develop better ways to filter out the unhelpful.

Stan

You could always turn Wikipedia into an exclusive club that people can only get into if they can prove themselves worthy. Along the same lines, you could eliminate user pages for non-admins altogether. But apparently there are a lot of Wikipedians (maybe even most), that would be opposed to that. Let them deal with the unhelpful.

Anthony

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg

...

...

There are better social clubs available on the net. If

socialising is

...

truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere soon enough.

There are no social clubs available on the net with the prestige of Wikipedia. It is a top 20 website.

Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that there are 19 more attractive ones?

Not really, since the others don't allow people to do this kind of thing.

But so long as

...

...

they aren't actually doing any harm, then why not praise their constructive efforts, instead of trying to chase them away? The more we

make Wikipedia

...

a cheerful co-operative community instead of a battleground,

the better for

...

all concerned.

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal of the project.

Did you try praising their constructive efforts before demonstrating to them that the proper role of a longtime editor is to spend time haranguing new editors?

I haven't done either, Skyring. Where are you getting this stuff from?

Maybe that sounds flippant, but ask yourself how these people must view your

attitude and what sort of example you are setting.

What "attitude"? And how on earth would they be aware of any of my thoughts on anything?

Jay.

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:24 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg

...

...

There are better social clubs available on the net. If

socialising is

...

truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere

soon enough.

...

...

There are no social clubs available on the net with the

prestige of

...

...

Wikipedia. It is a top 20 website.

Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that

there are 19

...

more attractive ones?

Not really, since the others don't allow people to do this kind of thing.

Ah. So you see Wikipedia as a social club. A prestigious social club.

Actually, I've been arguing the exact opposite. Are you sure you're reading my e-mails?

Jay.

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 10:26 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:24 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay < peter.mackay@bigpond.com> wrote:

...

...

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg

...

> There are better social clubs available on the net. If socialising is > truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere

soon enough.

...

...

There are no social clubs available on the net with the

prestige of

...

...

Wikipedia. It is a top 20 website.

Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that

there are 19

...

more attractive ones?

Not really, since the others don't allow people to do

this kind of

...

...

thing.

Ah. So you see Wikipedia as a social club. A prestigious

social club.

...

Actually, I've been arguing the exact opposite. Are you sure you're reading my e-mails?

You said: "There are no social clubs available on the net with the prestige of Wikipedia." That looks like a statement that Wikipedia is the most prestigious social club available on the net.

I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first introduced the concept of Wikipedia as a social club, and suggested there were better ones around.

Are you all done playing games?

Jay.

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal of the project.

Jay.

This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I assume you did not mean this.

Sam Spade

On 06/01/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:

...

When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the time and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal of the project.

This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I assume you did not mean this.

I think I broadly understand the intended meaning.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite, bedrock; that we write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and not an academic journal or discussion board.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus; our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on What Dialect Of English To Use.

Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable; that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.

And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence confusion like this.

So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy. Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him, whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.

But if he's going to argue over whether we're an encyclopedia, or whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with "gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good at doing so.

(Indeed, on things like NPOV, we wouldn't change if one _city_ of persuasive people came along. You get the idea.)

It is good to discuss things. But discussing something that cannot and will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time. I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.

Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have been wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I was one)

Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone. Arguing over something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can certainly be helpful.

I hope that's the point Jay meant to make, and I hope if so it seems clearer...

-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

But how does a new editor know the difference between policy, policy and policy? He needs to be set straight on the important things, but I can't see any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.

[[RTFM]]

Policy pages should fufill this function, and if they do not, they should be rewritten. Sure, questions are necessary to clarify fine points and applications in particular instances, but users who refuse to read policy pages after being directed to them and need basic things explained to them over and over again or who wish to argue about fundamental policy points are time-wasting problem users.

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2006 07:08 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

But how does a new editor know the difference between

policy, policy

...

and policy? He needs to be set straight on the important

things, but I

...

can't see any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.

[[RTFM]]

Yeah. And you know what happens if you say RTFM to a bunch of people who know what it means? They give a snort of laughter.

Policy pages should fufill this function, and if they do not, they should be rewritten. Sure, questions are necessary to clarify fine points and applications in particular instances, but users who refuse to read policy pages after being directed to them and need basic things explained to them over and over again or who wish to argue about fundamental policy points are time-wasting problem users.

People have different learning styles. Maybe some go straight to the policy pages, read them, understand them and need no further instruction, but I feel that these people are in the minority. The rest of us plunge in, press things to see what happens, ask questions and so on. Often someone will pop up on a new user's talk page and there is an instant link to someone who's been around. That's all good.

I'll agree that there are problem users who either do not or will not understand or follow policy, but I think you are being disingenuous if you are trying to say that most new editors fall into this category, or that editors with multiple userboxes automatically fall into this category.

So far as I can see, the only problem with policy as regards userboxes has been people putting fair-use images on templates. This is a fairly subtle point - if an image is used in the article space than why not use it elsewhere in WP? - but I think most would understand if it was explained in a friendly and reasonable manner, and this message seems to be getting through.

Peter (Skyring)

From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

I'll agree that there are problem users who either do not

or will not

...

understand or follow policy, but I think you are being

disingenuous if

...

you are trying to say that most new editors fall into this

category,

...

or that editors with multiple userboxes automatically fall

into this category.

I was not trying to say any such thing.

Good. So you agree that most users with multiple userboxes will follow policy, as will most new users. So it's hardly a major problem. We don't need to kick newbies, nor do we need to harass those with multiple userboxes. We only need to sort out those editors who don't follow policy, and that's a task that has been around since there were policies to follow, and presumably will continue so long as WP endures.

Peter, creature of logic

On 1/7/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

Rob wrote:

...

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

But how does a new editor know the difference between policy, policy and policy? He needs to be set straight on the important things, but I can't see any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.

Policy pages should fufill this function, and if they do not, they should

be

...

rewritten. Sure, questions are necessary to clarify fine points and applications in particular instances, but users who refuse to read policy pages after being directed to them and need basic things explained to

them

...

over and over again or who wish to argue about fundamental policy points

are

...

time-wasting problem users.

That's still a paternalistic, dictatorial model. You're closing off the possibility that they may have better ideas. That's also precisely what's wrong with many educational systems who grind children into an unquestiuning submission to the system.

How did you know I used to be a teacher? ;)

I'm all for questioning authority as much as the next guy, but is any purpose really served by indulging a new editor who wishes to argue about something fundamental like the NPOV policy? It's not going to change, and it's time better spent on, say, an encyclopedia. I usually point people to the Village Pump if they want to topple one of the pillars of Wikipedia on their first day here. Were I in the classroom again I would use the opportunity for an educational discussion (what we'd call a "teachable moment") on whatever the student was objecting to or suggesting. This isn't a classroom, though, it's an encyclopedia.

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

If a new editor doesn't understand NPOV, then why not explain it to them?

Please don't try to twist this into the idea that I am against explaining things to new editors. Explaining the rules is one thing, a protracted argument about their validity is another.

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

Fine. I was just picking up on your statement: "I usually point people to the Village Pump if they want to topple one of the pillars of Wikipedia on their first day here."

Just how often does this occur, anyway?

Not an everyday experience, but often enough for it to be annoying.

On 1/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

Rob wrote:

Some of the most successful editors that we never hear about are the ones who just go about their business editing the subjects they love best, without ever arguing with newbies.

One could argue that, with some exceptions, the best editors ARE the ones that we never hear about.

-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

Andrew Gray wrote:

There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite, bedrock; that we write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and not an academic journal or discussion board.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus; our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on What Dialect Of English To Use.

Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable; that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.

And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence confusion like this.

So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy. Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him, whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.

Just because he wants to debate these things does not mean that any of us needs to feel obliged to engage in that debate. It should be made clear to him that silence doesn not imply consent. He may not really be a troll, but the "Don't feed the trolls" principle can also work with other ideas.

But if he's going to argue over whether we're an encyclopedia, or whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with "gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good at doing so.

Whether we are an encyclopedia is an unchangeable policy that is fundamental to our existence, and that is what makes it unchangeable. Wiktionary and Wikibooks both grew out a fundamental deviation from that policy.

The petrol/gasoline is, at least theoretically, debatable and changeable. It is just highly unlikely that the person who makes such a suggestion would ever get anywhere with it. To use the argument that "*absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this debate" as an argument for stopping the debate before it starts prejudges the outcome, and that detracts from the freeness of Wikipedia. Let him make his proposal, and just as quickly ignore him.

It is good to discuss things. But discussing something that cannot and will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time. I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.

Gravity is the whole problem with some of these discussions; a little levity would bring about a significant improvement in tone.

Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have been wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I was one)

There is no effective way of arguing with utter cluelessness; it could have as easily been a dog demanding a woofopedia.. The best way to argue with them is not to argue at all. They go away much more quicly when you say absolutely nothing.

Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone. Arguing over something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can certainly be helpful.

To the extent that policies are at all votable those votes should remain open forever. Established organizations are prone to group-think based on their own past experiences. A newcomer may have a completely different view of a situation, and should not need to feel frozen from the debate because he arrived late. If enough newcomers vote to revoke that policy, then it's reversed. There is no reason to fear that very widely accepted policies will ever be changed by this. On the other hand, maybe the more hotly disputed policies need to be kept open until a more solid consensus can be reached.

Ec

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first introduced the concept of Wikipedia as a social club, and suggested there were better ones around.

Actually, that was Carbonite's phrase, not mine. I merely suggested that if people came here for socialising, there were better places to go. You responded, by appearing to disagree.

As was quite obvious, I explained why they might prefer to socialize on Wikipedia, rather than on those other places.

There seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's community facilities, such as

user pages, Village Pump, this mailing list and so on. They all help editors to co-operate, and a great many valuable editors take pleasure in dressing up their user pages, letting other editors know something about themselves, and personalising their own little space in a way that they can't do in article space.

If all this stuff is provided and is widely used, then why start to attack people for coming here and using it? Surely the problem is not that some people are actually using the facilities provided, but rather that they are not doing a real lot of work in article space, and to my mind we are not going to have a great deal of success in forcing volunteers to work harder. They will either leave entirely, depriving us of potential workers, or they will respond in kind to the behaviour shown them by experienced editors who should know better.

Is this plain common sense, or am I missing something here?

If they are here to build a great encyclopedia, and the social aspects of Wikipedia assist in that, then that's great. The issue I'm raising regards the many editors who seem to have no interest in actually building the encyclopedia itself, and instead focus their efforts almost entirely on using the social and "webhosting" facilities that are, in reality, here only to assist Wikipedia in its primary purpose.

Jay.

On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:

...

If they only made those 20 edits, then I'd agree, but many are making 10x that many edits complaining about their toys being taken away.

Again, why not encourage them to be more productive instead of lambasting them?

With so many of them, the last thing you'd want is for them to become more productive, because they're terrible editors. Carbonite is right: increasing numbers of people see this as a social club, many of whom seem to have difficulty getting along with people, or else enjoy causing trouble and drama; and from time to time, just to keep their hand in encyclopedia-wise, they'll engage in a quick bit of POV pushing, a flurry of reverts, and some name-calling, with a few spelling mistakes thrown in for good measure. Otherwise, it's back to editing the user page and trying to change policy.

Sarah

Encourage them to be more productive instead of lambasting

...

them?

With so many of them, the last thing you'd want is for them to become more productive, because they're terrible editors. Carbonite is right: increasing numbers of people see this as a social club, many of whom seem to have difficulty getting along with people, or else enjoy causing trouble and drama; and from time to time, just to keep their hand in encyclopedia-wise, they'll engage in a quick bit of POV pushing, a flurry of reverts, and some name-calling, with a few spelling mistakes thrown in for good measure. Otherwise, it's back to editing the user page and trying to change policy.

Sarah

Don't worry we have plenty for terrible editors to do. RC patrol for a start.

-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

We can't force people to work on the encyclopedia. They're doing what they want to do...[[GeekGirlSarah]] for example isn't going to be much of an editor, she's here for the community. I don't think you'd get very far asking GodOfWar to edit more...there's lot's of examples of newer users that simply are not here for the purpose of editing. For good or bad...

Tony Sidaway wrote:

On 1/3/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:

...

Yes, we can certainly illegalize any userboxes we like. The question is, are the productive users we're going to lose (and there are some) if we crack down on userboxes worth it? And who should decide?

We may lose them, but they'll be welcome on livejournal and myspace. I cannot imagine losing any serious contributor just because we say "no, we don't allow people to create userboxes that place them into categories by point of view--it promotes factionalism and has in the past resulted in serious attempts to subvert consensus."

When a person wants a particular POV to prevail it should make it easier to shop for votes. Targeted <s>spam</s> advertising is always more cost effective than sending the ad to everybody.

Ec

Kelly Martin wrote:

On 1/3/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:

...

Somebody compared userboxes to bumper stickers, and I think it's very apt. While we may dislike seeing cars covered with bumper stickers, we don't (usually :-) ) try to pass laws regulating the number or type of bumper stickers on a car, nor do we try to outlaw the printing of bumper stickers.

There have actually been attempts to pass such laws, and in some cases they've even been passed. Such laws are unconstitutional in the United States, however, and so they don't last.

Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, however, and does not have to worry about restrictions on advertisement, personal promotion, etc. being found unconstitutional.

Maybe the bumper sticker analogy wasn't the best. If you wan't to plaster your car completely over with bumper stickers, hey, it's still your car. The graffiti on NewYork City subway cars might have been more to the point.

Ec

On 1/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:

Similarly, "user has too many useless userboxes/user has < 500 article edits" could become a regular "oppose" reason at RfA... after all, if it's bad userboxes and stupid admins who are being targeted here, why not draw the conclusion that "stupid userboxes -> bad admins"?

Because once that becomes publicized, people will start removing userboxes during their RFA, and re-adding them after they are +sysoped. Looking at the content of someone's userpage will always be a lazy and inappropriate way to research whether someone is qualified to be an admin, I'm afraid.

Ryan

On 1/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/3/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:

...

2. Bloc voting. Is this against the rules?

Yes, of course it is. Good grief!

Really? Did we ever manage to kill school watch and the like?

-- geni