Userboxes: A radical proposal - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Userboxes: A radical proposal

Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: Task...

Proposal: Task forces

Steve Bennett

17 Feb 2006 17 Feb '06

4:32 p.m.

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages. Steve

Reply

Show replies by date

geni

17 Feb 17 Feb

4:37 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages. Steve

I'd lose my list of things I want to keep track of and the area I use to test various things. I'd also lose my partial list of canals without pictures. I'd also lose the template text I use to inform people they have been blocked under the three revert. Rule. That's just me. -- geni

Reply

Fred Bauder

4:59 p.m.

We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable decisions. Fred On Feb 17, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Steve Bennett

5:17 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable decisions.

We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the userboxes are evil line of thinking) Steve

Reply

charles matthews

5:58 p.m.

"Steve Bennett" wrote

We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the userboxes are evil line of thinking)

I wouldn't see it like that. There have always been some tensions around: e.g. get on and write the 'Pedia versus having a public life here, to name one which is not so contentious and where it is kind of obvious we need both. Equally we do need both of the wiki open door, and the right to throw a few disruptive users back on the street. What happens when things get out of kilter? We seem to have reached a stage where the granting of permissions, which is at the heart of the wiki way, is in tension with the assertion of rights. Everyone here knows that the permission to write on a page is quite distinct from the right to have your POV on the page; this is Wikipedia 101. The permission to write on one's user page, together with the right to veto anyone else's contributions there, is not a right 'of free speech' on a user page. If people are making decisions based on some assumed right of that kind, they are just completely wrong. This is not a feasible policy for Wikipedia. The fact is that user pages are not policed, except in egregious cases. That is not a reason to be confused about the basic situation. Charles

Reply

Steve Bennett

6:23 p.m.

On 2/17/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

What happens when things get out of kilter? We seem to have reached a stage where the granting of permissions, which is at the heart of the wiki way, is in tension with the assertion of rights. Everyone here knows that the permission to write on a page is quite distinct from the right to have your POV on the page; this is Wikipedia 101. The permission to write on one's user page, together with the right to veto anyone else's contributions there, is not a right 'of free speech' on a user page. If people are making decisions based on some assumed right of that kind, they are just completely wrong. This is not a feasible policy for Wikipedia. The fact is that user pages are not policed, except in egregious cases. That is not a reason to be confused about the basic situation.

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever? Steve

Reply

charles matthews

7:41 p.m.

Steve Bennett wrote

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Obviously there is a limit to slick formulations. But for me, the point is this: we give everyone a User Page (and that includes those who don't log in) to show that WP thinks that to participate in the _project_ is to belong to _it_; and not because WP thinks the _page_ belongs to _them_. It's about recognition, not property. Charles

Reply

Stephen Bain

18 Feb 18 Feb

12:17 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Include a big picture of an open door in the welcome message, and gently remind them that it's just as easy for us to kick them out through a big open door as it is for them to walk in (prize for someone who can put this in a non-biting way?). -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

geni

12:39 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Include a big picture of an open door in the welcome message, and gently remind them that it's just as easy for us to kick them out through a big open door as it is for them to walk in (prize for someone who can put this in a non-biting way?).

{{subst:test}} Otherwise know as oy we saw that. -- geni

Reply

Jimmy Wales

2:18 a.m.

Stephen Bain wrote:

On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Nicely put. So how do we go about telling people that they're welcome here, but they are guests, and have no rights whatsoever?

Include a big picture of an open door in the welcome message, and gently remind them that it's just as easy for us to kick them out through a big open door as it is for them to walk in (prize for someone who can put this in a non-biting way?).

The Germans have a nice way of putting it on the front page: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind immer willkommen – die ersten Schritte sind ganz einfach." This means: "Good authors are always welcome - the first steps are quite easy!" Contrast with the English: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I am not advocating a change (nor opposing it); I am just making an observation. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Reply

Mark Gallagher

9:36 a.m.

G'day Jimmy,

The Germans have a nice way of putting it on the front page: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind immer willkommen – die ersten Schritte sind ganz einfach." This means: "Good authors are always welcome - the first steps are quite easy!" Contrast with the English: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I am not advocating a change (nor opposing it); I am just making an observation.

I like that idea. I do have a question for the Germans, though: on en-WP we often get trolls and vandals arguing that they can't be blocked because "it says anyone has the right to edit, and I'm 'anyone'!" Do trolls on de-WP say "it says good authors are always welcome, and I'm a good author!"? (Sorry, whimsical mood. It'll pass.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 17/02/2006

Reply

Will "Sceptre" Noble

9:45 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

G'day Jimmy,

The Germans have a nice way of putting it on the front page: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind immer willkommen – die ersten Schritte sind ganz einfach." This means: "Good authors are always welcome - the first steps are quite easy!" Contrast with the English: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I am not advocating a change (nor opposing it); I am just making an observation.

I like that idea. I do have a question for the Germans, though: on en-WP we often get trolls and vandals arguing that they can't be blocked because "it says anyone has the right to edit, and I'm 'anyone'!" Do trolls on de-WP say "it says good authors are always welcome, and I'm a good author!"? (Sorry, whimsical mood. It'll pass.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

Possibly (but in German, of course), but their contributions would say otherwise (e.g. If an editor vandalised George W. Bush with "HEIL HITLER", it's obviously not a good edit. -- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk

Reply

Stephen Bain

10:06 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

I like that idea. I do have a question for the Germans, though: on en-WP we often get trolls and vandals arguing that they can't be blocked because "it says anyone has the right to edit, and I'm 'anyone'!" Do trolls on de-WP say "it says good authors are always welcome, and I'm a good author!"?

They just need a grammar lesson. Anyone *can* edit, but not everyone *may* edit. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Reply

Fred Bauder

17 Feb 17 Feb

7:27 p.m.

I think we need to continue to assume good faith on the part of our users. That they can use userboxes appropriately and that we can address the question of disruptive userboxes together and find reasonable solutions to the problems they pose. Fred On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

We could loose the faith of our users that we could make reasonable decisions.

We seem to have already lost faith in our users that they can make reasonable decisions for themselves. (Assuming you agree with the userboxes are evil line of thinking) Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Adrian Buehlmann

5:17 p.m.

Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

Does this mean to remove user space altogether? Where do we put the user talk pages then? I would loose my template test sandboxes. This would hurt badly. Adrian

Reply

Mark Gallagher

7:05 p.m.

G'day Steve,

What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

I find userpages very useful. They often give me an idea of how a user approaches Wikipedia, and through that what they'll probably be like to interact with: do they take pride in their contributions (brag lists, etc.), are they good with fiddling with wikicode (pretty userpages), are they generally practical and edit-oriented (impersonal userpage, with a list of reminders, useful templates, etc.), are they kooks (userpage full of ravings, foul-mouthed comments about The Beatles and Queen Brenda, etc.), are they confident users (a userpage that says "I'm new here and don't know my way around", probably means "no"), are they silly sausages (a userpage with hundreds of userboxen, many of which aren't even applicable but look pretty, what with all those fair use images), where are they from and how provincial are they ... you get the idea. I could probably live with losing my own userpage. It's not really doing all /that/ much that's useful. However, I'd like to hang on to the userpages of others ... -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006

Reply

Steve Bennett

7:15 p.m.

G'day Mark (and commiserations for living in Canberra :))), I wasn't denying that they're useful. But what's the worst possible outcome if they weren't there? In your case, how would you form impressions of others? I suspect that user contributions and talk page are pretty informative... Steve On 2/17/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

G'day Steve,

What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

I find userpages very useful. They often give me an idea of how a user approaches Wikipedia, and through that what they'll probably be like to interact with: do they take pride in their contributions (brag lists, etc.), are they good with fiddling with wikicode (pretty userpages), are they generally practical and edit-oriented (impersonal userpage, with a list of reminders, useful templates, etc.), are they kooks (userpage full of ravings, foul-mouthed comments about The Beatles and Queen Brenda, etc.), are they confident users (a userpage that says "I'm new here and don't know my way around", probably means "no"), are they silly sausages (a userpage with hundreds of userboxen, many of which aren't even applicable but look pretty, what with all those fair use images), where are they from and how provincial are they ... you get the idea. I could probably live with losing my own userpage. It's not really doing all /that/ much that's useful. However, I'd like to hang on to the userpages of others ...

Reply

Fred Bauder

7:44 p.m.

I find Mark Gallegher's response to this suggestion very appropriate. This is how I relate to user pages. I see an edit by an unfamiliar name. I wonder, "What is this user about?" I go to their user page and if they have an expressive page I can get a quick grasp of who we are dealing with. They same thing can be done by looking at a few dozen edits, but either a well thought out or a nutty user page usually tells all. User pages are functional and serve the purpose of the project. Fred On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:

G'day Steve,

What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

I find userpages very useful. They often give me an idea of how a user approaches Wikipedia, and through that what they'll probably be like to interact with: do they take pride in their contributions (brag lists, etc.), are they good with fiddling with wikicode (pretty userpages), are they generally practical and edit-oriented (impersonal userpage, with a list of reminders, useful templates, etc.), are they kooks (userpage full of ravings, foul-mouthed comments about The Beatles and Queen Brenda, etc.), are they confident users (a userpage that says "I'm new here and don't know my way around", probably means "no"), are they silly sausages (a userpage with hundreds of userboxen, many of which aren't even applicable but look pretty, what with all those fair use images), where are they from and how provincial are they ... you get the idea. I could probably live with losing my own userpage. It's not really doing all /that/ much that's useful. However, I'd like to hang on to the userpages of others ... -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Steve Bennett

7:53 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

I find Mark Gallegher's response to this suggestion very appropriate. This is how I relate to user pages. I see an edit by an unfamiliar name. I wonder, "What is this user about?" I go to their user page and if they have an expressive page I can get a quick grasp of who we are dealing with. They same thing can be done by looking at a few dozen edits, but either a well thought out or a nutty user page usually tells all.

This is interesting. I confess to never doing this at all (which makes me totally unqualified to participate in a debate on userpages, never having seen more than about 2 or 3 :)). I seem to form my impressions by what people say on talk pages, or occasionally what other people have said on their talk pages. I'm somewhat wary of the great discord that can exist between what people say they do, and what they actually do. Wikipedia is one of the rare instances where you can quickly check what people actually do. Steve

Reply

Tony Sidaway

11:31 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

User pages are functional and serve the purpose of the project.

Oh defo. Having said that, I got rid of my actual front page and redirected it to the talk page. People can get a pretty good picture of what I'm about *in the wikipedia context* from my interactions, and for people who want more there are heaps and heaps of subpages with all kinds of stuff. Contact lists, old watchlists, sandboxes, all kinds of stuff. An advantage of collapsing user and talk pages into one is that it immediately simplifies your signature. There's only one page to link to.

Reply

Steve Bennett

18 Feb 18 Feb

2:28 p.m.

On 2/18/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:

An advantage of collapsing user and talk pages into one is that it immediately simplifies your signature. There's only one page to link to.

I do that anyway. I've never really seen the point of including your user page in your sig. If they want to get to it, they can go through the talk page. Steve

Reply

Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

17 Feb 17 Feb

7:18 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages. Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

It would solve nothing at all: The userboxes would just go on the User talk page. Talk page headers and the like are just as "hands off" as User pages. Sam -- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

Reply

Mark Wagner

9:37 p.m.

On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

I'd lose: *My statement of multi-licensing into the public domain *My list of useful templates *My list of copyright-related links *OrphanBot's bot ownership statement *The description of what OrphanBot does and does not do *The custom messages that OrphanBot uses when notifying an uploader -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

Reply

Angela

18 Feb 18 Feb

2:25 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

You can take away user pages, but you won't remove the desire for users to express themselves and explain who they are. I expect we'd see signatures becoming more like mini-user pages rather than being a link to a user page if you did this. I think the main danger here would be losing a sense of community if there was no way of finding out anything about a person and everyone became anonymous. We need to remove the "hands off it's mine" view of user pages, not remove the user pages. It's not the pages themselves that are the problem. Angela.

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

8:10 a.m.

Angela wrote:

On 2/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, What is the worst possible thing that could happen if we removed userpages altogether? Not user talk pages, but "hands off it's mine" user pages.

You can take away user pages, but you won't remove the desire for users to express themselves and explain who they are. I expect we'd see signatures becoming more like mini-user pages rather than being a link to a user page if you did this. I think the main danger here would be losing a sense of community if there was no way of finding out anything about a person and everyone became anonymous. We need to remove the "hands off it's mine" view of user pages, not remove the user pages. It's not the pages themselves that are the problem.

I am reminded here of the incredibly intricate signatures present on Uncyclopedia, including postnominals which indicate what awards a user has won... -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Jimmy Wales

9:28 p.m.

Angela wrote:

You can take away user pages, but you won't remove the desire for users to express themselves and explain who they are. I expect we'd see signatures becoming more like mini-user pages rather than being a link to a user page if you did this. I think the main danger here would be losing a sense of community if there was no way of finding out anything about a person and everyone became anonymous. We need to remove the "hands off it's mine" view of user pages, not remove the user pages. It's not the pages themselves that are the problem.

I agree. The more I think about this, the more I refine my view of what I think is "the problem" with these userboxes. "The problem" is not people's self-expression, the problem is that by having these things in the Template namespace we are implicitly suggesting that these are endorsed by the Wikipedia community, and that plastering a bunch of advocacy stickers on your userpage is the right and normal way to be a good Wikipedian. One of the reasons we've always been so successful is deep and profound respect for individuality, *mostly* manifested by a willful abandonment of advocacy in our interactions and work. I show my respect for other people's individuality by not shouting about my own worldview, and I admire and respect others who do the same. This is why I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace. If you want to decorate your userpage with your advocacy for the death penalty and support for animal rights and so on, well, you know, whatever. I think it's lame, but whatever. However, that does *not* mean that I am complacent about having these things in a common space which seems to suggest not just "well, whatever" but "here's the thing you're supposed to do!" If I wasn't such a slow editor, and if I knew how to run a bot, I'd be likely to create a huge massive stir by going through every single template in the problematic categories and edit every single user page to subst them and/or move them to user space, deleting them all as I go. Please no one else do this... yet. :) -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Reply

geni

11:53 p.m.

On 2/18/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

I agree. The more I think about this, the more I refine my view of what I think is "the problem" with these userboxes. "The problem" is not people's self-expression, the problem is that by having these things in the Template namespace we are implicitly suggesting that these are endorsed by the Wikipedia community,

The evidence suggests they are accepted

and that plastering a bunch of advocacy stickers on your userpage is the right and normal way to be a good Wikipedian.

Admitting your POV is the first stage towards atchiveing NPOV.

One of the reasons we've always been so successful is deep and profound respect for individuality, *mostly* manifested by a willful abandonment of advocacy in our interactions and work.

Generaly I've found it's more that the advocates are outnumbered by those who don't care enough to form a POV but do want the advocates to stop being anoying

This is why I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace. If you want to decorate your userpage with your advocacy for the death penalty and support for animal rights and so on, well, you know, whatever. I think it's lame, but whatever. However, that does *not* mean that I am complacent about having these things in a common space which seems to suggest not just "well, whatever" but "here's the thing you're supposed to do!"

Do you have any evidence that it does? Most new editors are not really up to speed on the template namespace anyway.

If I wasn't such a slow editor, and if I knew how to run a bot, I'd be likely to create a huge massive stir by going through every single template in the problematic categories and edit every single user page to subst them and/or move them to user space, deleting them all as I go. Please no one else do this... yet. :)

They can't. Running an authorised bot will get you blocked. Deliberate attempts to make fair use vios harder to trace are also not recomended. -- geni

Reply

John Lee

19 Feb 19 Feb

7:05 a.m.

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :) John

Reply

Philip Welch

10:03 a.m.

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :)

Is this a test, to see if geni disagrees with your hypothesis? -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

geni

12:50 p.m.

On 2/19/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :) John

The mainling list tends to be dominated by inclusionists who favor at least a degree of centeralisation of power. I'm a rather extream deletionist who belives in keeping power as close to the community as posible. As a result I'm likely to dissagree with a lot of stuff. -- geni

Reply

Fred Bauder

2:13 p.m.

Definitely a problem. Not a lot of useful input from Geni. Fred On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:05 AM, John Lee wrote:

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :) John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

geni

3:11 p.m.

On 2/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Definitely a problem. Not a lot of useful input from Geni. Fred

Desent is now defined as non useful imput? You may not like me trying to shoot down your ideas but it is better it is done here before someone starts trying to put flawed ideas into practice. -- geni

Reply

Bryan Derksen

20 Feb 20 Feb

1:31 a.m.

geni wrote:

On 2/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Definitely a problem. Not a lot of useful input from Geni. Fred

Desent is now defined as non useful imput? You may not like me trying to shoot down your ideas but it is better it is done here before someone starts trying to put flawed ideas into practice.

You once accused me of violating WP:POINT for making a suggestion here on this mailing list to extend AfD's duration from a week to thirty days. That's more than just trying to "shoot down" my idea.

Reply

geni

2:47 a.m.

On 2/20/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

geni wrote:

On 2/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Definitely a problem. Not a lot of useful input from Geni. Fred

Desent is now defined as non useful imput? You may not like me trying to shoot down your ideas but it is better it is done here before someone starts trying to put flawed ideas into practice.

You once accused me of violating WP:POINT for making a suggestion here on this mailing list to extend AfD's duration from a week to thirty days. That's more than just trying to "shoot down" my idea.

Hmmm neither WP:POINT AFD or WP:POINT 30 days seems to produce any relivant emails in my inbox. So without being certian of the context I can't comment. -- geni

Reply

Geoff Burling

19 Feb 19 Feb

7:10 p.m.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, John Lee wrote:

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :)

Consider this: do you expect any statement you post to the maillist will be agreed to by everyone reading? And is it more likely to assume that someone will respond to diasgree than to agree? I suspect that your question could be raised about a number of people on this list. (And probably even me.) But writing specifically about geni, I haven't noticed this tendency. Geoff

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

20 Feb 20 Feb

3:30 a.m.

Geoff Burling wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, John Lee wrote:

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :)

Consider this: do you expect any statement you post to the maillist will be agreed to by everyone reading? And is it more likely to assume that someone will respond to diasgree than to agree? I suspect that your question could be raised about a number of people on this list. (And probably even me.) But writing specifically about geni, I haven't noticed this tendency.

geni is the most prolific poster to this list and has been for several months now; see http://tinyurl.com/qwn78 and scroll down to "Stats on mailing list participation". -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Phil Boswell

9:41 a.m.

"John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote in message news:43F818B1.10600@gawab.com...

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :)

Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to have this strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional. I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the strangely spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the **opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some careful thought). Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no sign of such ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of such ability here on the mailing list. After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to make out what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message. HTH HAND -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Reply

Philip Welch

10:02 a.m.

Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to have this strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional. I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the strangely spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the **opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some careful thought). Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no sign of such ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of such ability here on the mailing list. After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to make out what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message. HTH HAND

My main problem with posts by "Phil Boswell" is that they contain gratuitous unsolicited commentary on other people. No one cares what you think about anyone, so just Sierra Tango Whiskey Foxtrot. Thanks. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Steve Bennett

10:12 a.m.

Ok, can we all calm down now? Thanks. Steve On 2/20/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:

My main problem with posts by "Phil Boswell" is that they contain gratuitous unsolicited commentary on other people. No one cares what you think about anyone, so just Sierra Tango Whiskey Foxtrot. Thanks.

Reply

John Lee

12:45 p.m.

Philip Welch wrote:

Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to have this strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional. I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the strangely spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the **opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some careful thought). Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no sign of such ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of such ability here on the mailing list. After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to make out what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message. HTH HAND

My main problem with posts by "Phil Boswell" is that they contain gratuitous unsolicited commentary on other people. No one cares what you think about anyone, so just Sierra Tango Whiskey Foxtrot. Thanks.

Shouldn't that be Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform? Or am I confusing this with another acronym? John

Reply

Steve Bennett

12:55 p.m.

Can't we skip the snide comments? Is it necessary? Steve On 2/20/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:

Shouldn't that be Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform? Or am I confusing this with another acronym?

Reply

Philip Welch

21 Feb 21 Feb

midnight

My main problem with posts by "Phil Boswell" is that they contain gratuitous unsolicited commentary on other people. No one cares what you think about anyone, so just Sierra Tango Whiskey Foxtrot. Thanks.

Shouldn't that be Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform? Or am I confusing this with another acronym?

Bah, you're right. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Reply

Tony Sidaway

3:42 a.m.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Zulo Oscar Mike Golf!

Reply

John Lee

20 Feb 20 Feb

12:45 p.m.

Phil Boswell wrote:

"John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote in message news:43F818B1.10600@gawab.com...

Is it me, or does geni appear to disagree with nearly everything ever proposed on the mailing list? Maybe he just likes playing devil's advocate, but whenever I see something by geni, I immediately know it'll disagree with someone somewhere. :)

Actually my main problem with posts by "geni" is that they seem to have this strange aversion to spell-checking, and grammar seems to be optional. I actually find it difficult to read these messages because of the strangely spelt words, sometimes to the extent that the message states the **opposite** of what is meant (which is only discernable after some careful thought). Whether "geni" can spell or not I have no clue, but there is no sign of such ability on the mailing list. Whether or not "geni" can operate a spell-checker or not, I similarly have no clue: there is no sign of such ability here on the mailing list. After a bit I reach the point where I don't even bother trying to make out what "geni" wants to say: I simply click on to the next message. HTH HAND

Geni is dyslexic. John

Reply

Phil Boswell

1:07 p.m.

"John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote in message news:43F9B9D1.30907@gawab.com... [snip]

Geni is dyslexic.

I can't recall whether the current social convention is that I should express sympathy or not for that particular condition. If I should, please take this as an expression of sympathy; if not, please bit-bucket it and pretend I politely ignored it according to convention. Whichever way around, according to the latest statistics "geni" is the most prolific contributor to this mailing list, and is therefore probably well-worth listening to. It would surely be helpful if I could understand the opinions being expressed. I have no idea whether I have a problem with those opinions because I cannot without a great deal of effort make out what they are. In at least one message received today (having been posted over the weekend) I am fairly sure that what was typed was actually the **opposite** of what was intended; it was however impossible to decide so I moved on. Whatever is the politest way of saying "please turn your spell-checker on so I can understand what you're saying", please substitute that for this sentence; please insert in addition any extra bits-and-pieces required to make it completely clear that I am trying my best to AGF, and that it would be nice if people were to do so in turn. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Reply

Steve Bennett

19 Feb 19 Feb

11:03 a.m.

On 2/19/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

the Template namespace we are implicitly suggesting that these are endorsed by the Wikipedia community,

The evidence suggests they are accepted

Accepted <> endorsed or welcomed. I accept seeing piles of rotting rubbish on the street - I don't go out of my way to change it. But I don't welcome or endorse it.

Admitting your POV is the first stage towards atchiveing NPOV.

I don't know if that's true. It's helpful at some stage, but finding common ground is perhaps a better first step. Most semi-political arguments about US foreign policy seemed to start with people definining their allegiances ("I'm a republican") etc, and things rapidly degenerated. Steve

Reply

geni

12:52 p.m.

On 2/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/19/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

the Template namespace we are implicitly suggesting that these are endorsed by the Wikipedia community,

The evidence suggests they are accepted

Accepted <> endorsed or welcomed. I accept seeing piles of rotting rubbish on the street - I don't go out of my way to change it. But I don't welcome or endorse it.

Perhaps but the community has never been given a chance to endorse or otherwise.

Admitting your POV is the first stage towards atchiveing NPOV.

I don't know if that's true. It's helpful at some stage, but finding common ground is perhaps a better first step. Most semi-political arguments about US foreign policy seemed to start with people definining their allegiances ("I'm a republican") etc, and things rapidly degenerated. Steve

That isn't an area I've worked in so I'm unable to comment. -- geni

Reply

Jeffrey M. Smith

1:48 a.m.

On Saturday 18 February 2006 13:28, Jimmy Wales wrote:

This is why I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace.

Have you seen [[Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes]] ? That policy proposal says that you think it's a good idea, but whether or not you've actually said this seems to be challenged. One valid problem with that proposal is that it encourages userbox templates to be recreated as sub-pages in the user namespace, which would again make them available as templates for use across multiple user pages. (While this might be fine for non-POV userboxes, I'd imagine you'd have the same objection to POV templates in userspace as you do for POV templates in the template namespace.)

If I wasn't such a slow editor, and if I knew how to run a bot, I'd be likely to create a huge massive stir by going through every single template in the problematic categories and edit every single user page to subst them and/or move them to user space, deleting them all as I go. Please no one else do this... yet. :)

Well, with the T1-justified deletion spree of politics or belief-oriented userboxes[1] paired with [[User:Pathoschild]] 's efforts to subst the contents of these deleted userboxes onto user pages, I think this is already taking place. [1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_del_userbox -- [[User:Jeffrey Smith]] <wikipedian(a)jeffsmith.us>

Reply

Tony Sidaway

1:58 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

If I wasn't such a slow editor, and if I knew how to run a bot, I'd be likely to create a huge massive stir by going through every single template in the problematic categories and edit every single user page to subst them and/or move them to user space, deleting them all as I go. Please no one else do this... yet. :)

Er, it didn't happen in any organised way, but in fact, that is precisely what has been happening. Basically a bunch of admins went bananas and started deleting stuff they thought was bad, and at the same time another guy started quietly retrieving stuff and substing on other people's user pages using some kind of semi-automatic browser tool. And you know what? The users hate the admins but they love the guy who does the substing. As long as they get their pretty pastel boxes back, the reasonable ones happy, and the more reasonable admins are happy. I think we're headed for consensus!

Reply

Will "Sceptre" Noble

9:42 a.m.

On 2/18/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

If I wasn't such a slow editor, and if I knew how to run a bot, I'd be likely to create a huge massive stir by going through every single template in the problematic categories and edit every single user page to subst them and/or move them to user space, deleting them all as I go. Please no one else do this... yet. :)

User:Pathochild is running a miniproject to subst deleted userboxes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes). A few users are helping as well. Just a kind of halfway solution. -- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk

Reply

Drini drini

20 Feb 20 Feb

3:26 a.m.

Exactly. There's no problem about writing "I like chocolate strawberry ice cream" on your userpage. It's the template namespace pollution that creating an userbox for that sole purpose that causes the problem. And if an user feels so strong about chocolate strawberry ice cream, why limit himself to an 8-word userbox? write a paragraph in your own words about why is it such a good ice cream flavor. On 2/18/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

I agree. The more I think about this, the more I refine my view of what I think is "the problem" with these userboxes. "The problem" is not people's self-expression, the problem is that by having these things in the Template namespace we are implicitly suggesting that these are endorsed by the Wikipedia community, and that plastering a bunch of advocacy stickers on your userpage is the right and normal way to be a good Wikipedian.

Reply

geni

3:32 a.m.

On 2/20/06, Drini drini <wpdrini(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Exactly. There's no problem about writing "I like chocolate strawberry ice cream" on your userpage. It's the template namespace pollution that creating an userbox for that sole purpose that causes the problem.

I don't know what mediawiki's limit on the upper length for article titles is but I know it is greater than 20 letters. Assuming we stick to the latin alphabet an ignore spaces that gives us 19,928,148,895,209,400,000,000,000,000 posible templates. I don't think we need to worry to much about polution. -- geni

Reply

Drini drini

4:29 a.m.

Still, no value being added for having an 8 word template over a frivolous irrelevant topic. If people want to express themselves, they can do so by WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and that will even let do so on their own words not being restricted to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can still talk about icecream flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't WRITING what we are all here fore?). The problem is the unnecesary waste of resources by having the template.

Reply

Kelly Martin

5:57 a.m.

On 2/19/06, Drini drini <wpdrini(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Still, no value being added for having an 8 word template over a frivolous irrelevant topic. If people want to express themselves, they can do so by WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and that will even let do so on their own words not being restricted to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can still talk about icecream flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't WRITING what we are all here fore?). The problem is the unnecesary waste of resources by having the template.

I don't care about the resources. It's the culture of having these "prefabricated opinion statements" for people to pick and choose from. Pretty much everything on my user page COULD be reduced to a userbox. But to do so is vile and repulsive, if you ask me. Kelly

Reply

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

6:01 a.m.

So you're saying that you delete the boxes because you don't like their presence? I don't buy that argument. There must be a practical reason for not wanting them. --- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/19/06, Drini drini <wpdrini(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Still, no value being added for having an 8 word

template over a frivolous

irrelevant topic. If people want to express

themselves, they can do so by

WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and

that will even let do so on

their own words not being restricted to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can

still talk about icecream

flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't

WRITING what we are all here

fore?). The problem is the unnecesary waste of

resources by having the

template.

I don't care about the resources. It's the culture of having these "prefabricated opinion statements" for people to pick and choose from. Pretty much everything on my user page COULD be reduced to a userbox. But to do so is vile and repulsive, if you ask me. Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Reply

Alphax (Wikipedia email)

9:27 a.m.

STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

--- Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/19/06, Drini drini <wpdrini(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Still, no value being added for having an 8 word template over a frivolous irrelevant topic. If people want to express themselves, they can do so by WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and that will even let do so on their own words not being restricted to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can still talk about icecream flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't WRITING what we are all here fore?). The problem is the unnecesary waste of resources by having the template.

I don't care about the resources. It's the culture of having these "prefabricated opinion statements" for people to pick and choose from. Pretty much everything on my user page COULD be reduced to a userbox. But to do so is vile and repulsive, if you ask me.

So you're saying that you delete the boxes because you don't like their presence? I don't buy that argument. There must be a practical reason for not wanting them.

They demonstrate and encourage groupthink. Groupthink is BAD. Wikipedia is *NOT* Livejournal, Myspace, or anything other than an encyclopedia. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Reply

Drini drini

4:29 a.m.

Still, no value being added for having an 8 word template over a frivolous irrelevant topic. If people want to express themselves, they can do so by WRITING their opinions on their userpages, and that will even let do so on their own words not being restricted to 8 words. It's not like they're being censored. They can still talk about icecream flavors on their userpages. (After all, isn't WRITING what we are all here fore?). The problem is the unnecesary waste of resources by having the template. On 2/20/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/06, Drini drini <wpdrini(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Exactly. There's no problem about writing "I like chocolate strawberry ice cream" on your userpage. It's the template namespace pollution that creating an userbox for that sole purpose that causes the problem.

I don't know what mediawiki's limit on the upper length for article titles is but I know it is greater than 20 letters. Assuming we stick to the latin alphabet an ignore spaces that gives us 19,928,148,895,209,400,000,000,000,000 posible templates. I don't think we need to worry to much about polution. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

6634

days inactive

6636

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

56 comments

23 participants

tags (0)

participants (23)

Adrian Buehlmann
Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Angela
Bryan Derksen
charles matthews
Drini drini
Fred Bauder
geni
Geoff Burling
Jeffrey M. Smith
Jimmy Wales
John Lee
Kelly Martin
Mark Gallagher
Mark Wagner
Phil Boswell
Philip Welch
Sam Fentress (Asbestos)
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA
Stephen Bain
Steve Bennett
Tony Sidaway
Will "Sceptre" Noble