Hi!
I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics, regarding the unblocking of vandals, not to mention his defense of the most obvious cases of extreme vandalism (the Zog incident comes to mind). It is very difficult to ban someone on Wikipedia--in fact, the number of permanently banned users I know of is just six (HJ, Ark, Lir, Michael, DW, Zog, some of whom had various incarnations). The ability to block an IP (and not a user name) is used to prevent kids from adding grafitti to the site. In most cases, it is effective, and those vandals disappear once it becomes more challenging to edit. It is not some instance of eternal damnation. If the person apologizes and begins to really contribute, they are welcomed back. Even in the serious bans above, people have been told that if they reform their behaviors they can return and continue to contribute. Discuss it with Jimbo and they will be welcomed back. Most don't because they have no interest in coming back.
Wikipedia is a project with a stated objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is not to create an ideal democratic society a la Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come h ell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the date format and spelling policies. Look how much time that wasted from the overriding goal, when a compromise of allowing people to do what they want seemed to be working fine for the most part. Unfortunately, it was Martin pushing that finalizing agenda again.
The end result of all this is that some of the serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most prolific Wikipedians and a real defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute.
What I would like to see are some solid contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page does not count---before wasting our time with the Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police it over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Danny
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi!
I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics, regarding the unblocking of vandals, not to mention his defense of the most obvious cases of extreme vandalism (the Zog incident comes to mind). It is very difficult to ban someone on Wikipedia--in fact, the number of permanently banned users I know of is just six (HJ, Ark, Lir, Michael, DW, Zog, some of whom had various incarnations). The ability to block an IP (and not a user name) is used to prevent kids from adding grafitti to the site. In most cases, it is effective, and those vandals disappear once it becomes more challenging to edit. It is not some instance of eternal damnation. If the person apologizes and begins to really contribute, they are welcomed back. Even in the serious bans above, people have been told that if they reform their behaviors they can return and continue to contribute. Discuss it with Jimbo and they will be welcomed back. Most don't because they have no interest in coming back.
Wikipedia is a project with a stated objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is not to create an ideal democratic society a la Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come h ell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the date format and spelling policies. Look how much time that wasted from the overriding goal, when a compromise of allowing people to do what they want seemed to be working fine for the most part. Unfortunately, it was Martin pushing that finalizing agenda again.
The end result of all this is that some of the serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most prolific Wikipedians and a real defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute.
What I would like to see are some solid contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page does not count---before wasting our time with the Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police it over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Danny
Have you understood the principles upon which Wikipedia is built ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Mav wrote
Do you? We are here to build an encyclopedia. The community aspect is a means to an end, not an end in itself (and I think that was the underlying message that Danny was writing about).
I think so. Because the articles do not appear from no where. They appear from a human capital that must be mothered.
And please consider how insulting it appears to put in quotes the word "Wikipedian" when referring to another contributor; in English this implies that you believe the other person is not a real Wikipedian. That isn't nice and I hope you will do the right thing and apologize to Danny - who /is/ a damn good and very real
Wikipedian.
That was not what I meant, so I apologize. However I think that in Wikipedia, everyone can be part of the big picture. And being a good wikipedian is not only granted by being a *good editor* and a *good vandal chaser*. If you and Danny think so, I think we severely disagree upon how a team is working in a project such as Wikipedia.
**If this is the case, I suggest that we discuss about it, because that is very important.**
I think building an encyclopedia is not done only by just creating articles.
participating in the building is also :
* helping setting the rules and recommandations * building the software * helping to sooth people in edit war * balancing powers * playing devil advocate * cleaning after others * welcoming newbies
and so on.
Danny seems to consider the only thing important and valuable is making articles. I don't think so. Everyone input is valuable, and people that are little participating directly in articles are just as important. Some of the developpers basically do not write anything. Are they not important to the project ?
If people like Martin, KQ, Brion, The Cunctator, and others of course, were not around, I would not be around myself. Because if Brion were not there, no one would take care of international wikipedias, if Martin was not there, no one would take care of balancing things, if The Cunctator was not there, no one would take care of pointing out to obvious things being missed because of groupthink.
And I could cite half a dozen people just doing *very* important things in the project, that I think are even more important than editing, because that is were their power and ability rely.
A team (what I think we are, not a random collection of little penpals), must be made up from very different people, with different abilities which complete themselves.
A project just can't work without software, governance, structure. And yes, Zoe was important too in her role of chasing vandals. And yes, welcoming newbies is important too. And yes, Ed role of insisting on NPOV is very important too.
Not only "creating" articles.
The last point I think the worse in its underlying meaning is to suggest martin should not be a sysop, just because he is not writing much articles.
Remind me of what a sysop definition is please, because I think we must also perhaps redefined what a sysop must be.
Is it granted by the number of edits you make to an article ?
Or is it granted by the fact people are confident you will act in faith ?
Would anyone dare suggest Martin is not acting in good faith ? Would anyone dare suggest Martin work was more bad to the project than good, just because he tried to balance power, endlessly check and improved all the FAQ and meta articles, endlessly diffusing wikilove over those in edit wars ?
I think that saying Martin is not a good wikipedian and should be removed from sysophood just because he is not creating many articles, is a VERY VERY VERY bad direction the project is taking. I am sure you can see that as well Mav.
I also hope very much that Danny will do the right thing as well, and apologies to Martin who is also a very good wikipedian.
This is a case of forking we have here if these things are not agreed upon.
Anthere
--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hi!
I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics, regarding the unblocking of vandals, not to mention his defense of the most obvious cases of extreme vandalism (the Zog incident comes to mind). It is very difficult to ban someone on Wikipedia--in fact, the number of permanently banned users I know of is just six (HJ, Ark, Lir, Michael, DW, Zog, some of whom had various incarnations). The ability to block an IP (and not a user name) is used to prevent kids from adding grafitti to the site. In most cases, it is effective, and those vandals disappear once it becomes more challenging to edit. It is not some instance of eternal damnation. If the person apologizes and begins to really contribute, they are welcomed back. Even in the serious bans above, people have been told that if they reform their behaviors they can return and continue to contribute. Discuss it with Jimbo and they will be welcomed back. Most don't because they have no interest in coming back.
Wikipedia is a project with a stated objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is not to create an ideal democratic society a la Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come h ell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the date format and spelling policies. Look how much time that wasted from the overriding goal, when a compromise of allowing people to do what they want seemed to be working fine for the most part. Unfortunately, it was Martin pushing that finalizing agenda again.
The end result of all this is that some of the serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most prolific Wikipedians and a real defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute.
What I would like to see are some solid contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page does not count---before wasting our time with the Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police it over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Danny
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:45:12 EDT, daniwo59@aol.com gave utterance to the following:
Hi!
I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics, regarding the unblocking of vandals.
What has he been doing? Removing IP blocks? In many cases (dynamic IP's) that has to be done otherwise we end up blocking innocent visitors rather than the vandal.