Both sides seem to be treating the userbox conflict as some sort of law-enforcement issue. It's either something like: "We need to show those darn n00bs that they can't get away with this!" Or something like: "We need to show those renegade admins that they can't get away with this!"
(Caricaturing slightly, of course.)
But it seems to me like this is better treated as an *educational* issue. We need to calmly and carefully explain how some things, if you put them on your userpage, make you look stupid. And - much more importantly - how they make the project look stupid.
When people new to the project come upon userpages full of neat standardized boxes expressing all sorts of opinions they don't think: "Aha, these users have gone out of their way to make pretty userpages." The impression given is rather: "The Wikipedia project provides users with a built-in mechanism to express standardized sound-bite views about a bunch of topics."
This is not the impression I think we want to give. I'm all for people expressing their opinions and points of view creatively on their userpages (sure, why not, I like reading userpages and it's often helpful to know where people are coming from). But when it looks like the Wikimedia foundation is encouraging people to hold over-simplified views on complicated issues like, say, EU-enlargement, then that is not such a good thing.
Thoughts?
Haukur
On 1/10/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
when it looks like the Wikimedia foundation is encouraging people to hold over-simplified views on complicated issues like, say, EU-enlargement, then that is not such a good thing.
Thoughts?
Absolutely. This is a "What Wikipedia is not" issue. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming known more for bumper sticker culture full of simplistic political slogans than for its encyclopedie, which *used* to be (I recall sometime back before December) about producing an encyclopedia of which one of the most persistent policy points was its *neutral* point of view.
How can we build a neutral encyclopedia while providing common resources to enable the wide propagation of such rabid political statements as "Love my Country —Fear my Government" (with wikilinks to the articles on patriotism and neo-nazism) and "This user trusts the EU (an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy) about as far as they can throw it"?
On 1/11/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
when it looks like the Wikimedia foundation is encouraging people to hold over-simplified views on complicated issues like, say, EU-enlargement, then that is not such a good thing.
Thoughts?
Absolutely. This is a "What Wikipedia is not" issue. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming known more for bumper sticker culture full of simplistic political slogans than for its encyclopedie, which *used* to be (I recall sometime back before December) about producing an encyclopedia of which one of the most persistent policy points was its *neutral* point of view.
How can we build a neutral encyclopedia while providing common resources to enable the wide propagation of such rabid political statements as "Love my Country —Fear my Government" (with wikilinks to the articles on patriotism and neo-nazism) and "This user trusts the EU (an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy) about as far as they can throw it"?
How isn't so important if it's already happening. Do you think Wikipedia has stopped building a neutral encyclopedia?