I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My position in short
We are here to write an encyclopedia. First before all.
Userbox are interesting if they are related to Wikipedia activity and growth.
Wikipedians mood IS actually important to the community building and interacting. Which browsers are used is also an interesting information to know how Wikipedia appears to readers, detect bugs... Which language the user manage or which project he participates to is also interesting for project management and editors daily interactions.
All this is well and good.
Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if one is actually masturbating himself while writing a message on another user talk page. Is that related to Wikipedia ? Is that helping the community ? No. So, it should go away.
Having a template stating something against our goals, such as {{User allow fairuse}} has a name : it is trolling. Trolling has benefits... sometimes. But if it disrupts the community too much (and generate thousands of mails on a mailing list, huge loss of time), then, it should just go away.
ant
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthere wrote:
Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if one is actually masturbating himself while writing a message on another user talk page. Is that related to Wikipedia ? Is that helping the community ? No. So, it should go away.
This is a great quote! Is there a Wikipedian quote collection that this could be added to?
(Must make it non-sexist by changing to "himself/herself" tho. :-) )
Stan
So how do we make things like this go away? The trouble here is that a shocking number, maybe an outright majority, of users seem to think "free speech" on Wikipedia is a higher value than actually writing the encyclopedia. I don't think ignoring their views--misguided though they may be--will improve the encyclopedia, I think it'll make things worse.
SCZenz
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
My position in short
We are here to write an encyclopedia. First before all.
Userbox are interesting if they are related to Wikipedia activity and growth.
Wikipedians mood IS actually important to the community building and interacting. Which browsers are used is also an interesting information to know how Wikipedia appears to readers, detect bugs... Which language the user manage or which project he participates to is also interesting for project management and editors daily interactions.
All this is well and good.
Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if one is actually masturbating himself while writing a message on another user talk page. Is that related to Wikipedia ? Is that helping the community ? No. So, it should go away.
Having a template stating something against our goals, such as {{User allow fairuse}} has a name : it is trolling. Trolling has benefits... sometimes. But if it disrupts the community too much (and generate thousands of mails on a mailing list, huge loss of time), then, it should just go away.
ant
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Technical idea : limit the number of templates on a page ?
ant
SCZenz wrote:
So how do we make things like this go away? The trouble here is that a shocking number, maybe an outright majority, of users seem to think "free speech" on Wikipedia is a higher value than actually writing the encyclopedia. I don't think ignoring their views--misguided though they may be--will improve the encyclopedia, I think it'll make things worse.
SCZenz
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
My position in short
We are here to write an encyclopedia. First before all.
Userbox are interesting if they are related to Wikipedia activity and growth.
Wikipedians mood IS actually important to the community building and interacting. Which browsers are used is also an interesting information to know how Wikipedia appears to readers, detect bugs... Which language the user manage or which project he participates to is also interesting for project management and editors daily interactions.
All this is well and good.
Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if one is actually masturbating himself while writing a message on another user talk page. Is that related to Wikipedia ? Is that helping the community ? No. So, it should go away.
Having a template stating something against our goals, such as {{User allow fairuse}} has a name : it is trolling. Trolling has benefits... sometimes. But if it disrupts the community too much (and generate thousands of mails on a mailing list, huge loss of time), then, it should just go away.
ant
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
On 1/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think so, Time spent policing userboxes for fair use violations is wasted time. but they are fun.
Fred
On Jan 6, 2006, at 3:47 AM, Anthere wrote:
Technical idea : limit the number of templates on a page ?
ant
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
-- Sam
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
In any case, if we were to do this, we would need a bot to go through and substitute the massively-used shorthand templates: {{tl}}, {{user}}, {{vandal}}, {{admin}}, etc.
Kirill Lokshin
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
In any case, if we were to do this, we would need a bot to go through and substitute the massively-used shorthand templates: {{tl}}, {{user}}, {{vandal}}, {{admin}}, etc.
The point of these templates is that they are short and simple to use. If they are subst:'d in, they become more complicated. Why do we need to do this?
Chris
On 1/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
In any case, if we were to do this, we would need a bot to go through and substitute the massively-used shorthand templates: {{tl}}, {{user}}, {{vandal}}, {{admin}}, etc.
The point of these templates is that they are short and simple to use. If they are subst:'d in, they become more complicated. Why do we need to do this?
Because otherwise they won't work, given that they tend to be used many times on a single page.
This entire discussion, of course, assumes that limiting the number of templates expanded per page is actually something that may take place.
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
In any case, if we were to do this, we would need a bot to go through and substitute the massively-used shorthand templates: {{tl}}, {{user}}, {{vandal}}, {{admin}}, etc.
The point of these templates is that they are short and simple to use. If they are subst:'d in, they become more complicated. Why do we need to do this?
Benefit to the servers. Avoidable use of templates should be avoided, and substitution is an easy way of doing that. Creating slightly ugly code is unfortunate but inevitable.
-- Sam
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
The point of these templates is that they are short and simple to use. If they are subst:'d in, they become more complicated. Why do we need to do this?
Benefit to the servers. Avoidable use of templates should be avoided, and substitution is an easy way of doing that. Creating slightly ugly code is unfortunate but inevitable.
Is there template syntax to force a template to always subst: in? If not, it might be a good idea.
-Matt
On 1/6/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Is there template syntax to force a template to always subst: in? If not, it might be a good idea.
No, but I believe some bots do it.
-- Sam
If you disallow templates, people who like them will just copy&paste the code on their user page. It doesn't take longer at all, one just needs to mark slightly more text with their mouse.
I think if you want to limit the kind of content that can be posted on a user page, you'll need to come up with a new policy, not a new piece of code.
Although removing fair use images from user pages by a bot can work.
-- nyenyec
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Is there template syntax to force a template to always subst: in? If not, it might be a good idea.
No, but I believe some bots do it.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/6/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
If you disallow templates, people who like them will just copy&paste the code on their user page. It doesn't take longer at all, one just needs to mark slightly more text with their mouse.
That cuts out my main complaint against userboxes.
-- Sam
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
If you disallow templates, people who like them will just copy&paste the code on their user page. It doesn't take longer at all, one just needs to mark slightly more text with their mouse.
That cuts out my main complaint against userboxes.
Exactly. I'd like to have a repository of code for creating whatever userboxes people come up with. No fair use images or categories would be allowed. Userboxes that actually had an encyclopedic use (Babel boxes, for example) could remain as templates. This would seem to allow everyone to keep their userboxes and would remove the vast majority of complaints about them.
Carbonite
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
In any case, if we were to do this, we would need a bot to go through and substitute the massively-used shorthand templates: {{tl}}, {{user}}, {{vandal}}, {{admin}}, etc.
Some of those are convenient. For example, on [[WP:LA]], if the admin2 template were substituted, and later changed, someone would have to go through and change every listing by hand.
On 1/6/06, Nathan Russell windrunner@gmail.com wrote:
Some of those are convenient. For example, on [[WP:LA]], if the admin2 template were substituted, and later changed, someone would have to go through and change every listing by hand.
Then program a bot to do it. Convenience is not a good reason to put unnecessary strain on the servers.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
Then program a bot to do it. Convenience is not a good reason to put unnecessary strain on the servers.
That's the entire reason we have computers, for convenience. We could be doing Wikipedia on paper but a computer makes it easier. Convenience is an *excellent* justification for extra strain on the servers. The solution is optimisation.
Chris
On 1/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Then program a bot to do it. Convenience is not a good reason to put unnecessary strain on the servers.
That's the entire reason we have computers, for convenience. We could be doing Wikipedia on paper but a computer makes it easier. Convenience is an *excellent* justification for extra strain on the servers. The solution is optimisation.
Chris
Wikipedia code optimisation is already pretty good. Compare our server numbers to those of other high traffic sites.
-- geni
On 1/6/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Then program a bot to do it. Convenience is not a good reason to put unnecessary strain on the servers.
That's the entire reason we have computers, for convenience. We could be doing Wikipedia on paper but a computer makes it easier. Convenience is an *excellent* justification for extra strain on the servers. The solution is optimisation.
There are over two hundred thousand pages linking to template:tl. Have you any idea of the disruption that would be caused to the servers by {{tl}} being edited? It would crash the servers for ages. If the templates aren't going to be changed, the only reason for leaving them is that they look prettier in the code. When you think of the damage that could be caused by their being changed, even in good faith, that justification does not hold up. I intend to create a bot to mass-substitute all instances of these templates.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
There are over two hundred thousand pages linking to template:tl. Have you any idea of the disruption that would be caused to the servers by {{tl}} being edited? It would crash the servers for ages. If the templates aren't going to be changed, the only reason for leaving them is that they look prettier in the code. When you think of the damage that could be caused by their being changed, even in good faith, that justification does not hold up. I intend to create a bot to mass-substitute all instances of these templates.
What's wrong with having tidy text in the code? I can't see a reason that template:tl needs to be changed. And I really wish you wouldn't create a bot just yet until this has been thoroughly discussed. :)
Chris
On 1/7/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
What's wrong with having tidy text in the code? I can't see a reason that template:tl needs to be changed. And I really wish you wouldn't create a bot just yet until this has been thoroughly discussed. :)
Don't worry, my bot isn't programmed yet! (Though it is named: Sambot, in honour of Rambot.) Nothing is wrong with having tidy text in the code. However, the balance between the potential losses in terms of server strain and the usefullness of tidy code (IMO) falls definitely on the side of easing server strain.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/7/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
What's wrong with having tidy text in the code? I can't see a reason that template:tl needs to be changed. And I really wish you wouldn't create a bot just yet until this has been thoroughly discussed. :)
Don't worry, my bot isn't programmed yet! (Though it is named: Sambot, in honour of Rambot.) Nothing is wrong with having tidy text in the code. However, the balance between the potential losses in terms of server strain and the usefullness of tidy code (IMO) falls definitely on the side of easing server strain.
Template:tl is protected anyway, so I don't see the risk as being all that large. If other templates also become so widely used that changes to them would cause serious problems, protect them too. Such widespread templates probably shouldn't be changed very often anyway even if there weren't server issues, simply on account of how many places such changes would touch.
On the other hand, if it later turns out that a template like this _does_ need changing, it'll be a lot harder to fix everything if it's been substed everywhere.
On 1/7/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Template:tl is protected anyway, so I don't see the risk as being all that large. If other templates also become so widely used that changes to them would cause serious problems, protect them too. Such widespread templates probably shouldn't be changed very often anyway even if there weren't server issues, simply on account of how many places such changes would touch.
On the other hand, if it later turns out that a template like this _does_ need changing, it'll be a lot harder to fix everything if it's been substed everywhere.
Another technical concern is that every time the article is saved the request is sent to the database to reload the template. This can certainly make avoidable load.
I think most shorthand templates should be substituted for another reason as well as the technical side (although this is a risk even with the best-intentioned admins). Most templates are useful because they are fluid -- changes can be made on one page to affect a hundred related articles. That is excellent, and a good use of templates. However, shorthand templates aren't intended for that. They are intended to give a small bit of text quickly. The writer doesn't expect their text to change later.
-- Sam
"Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote in message news:cbffa3750601071337y2067195cr19ec7cb8083c6330@mail.gmail.com... On 1/7/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: [snip]
On the other hand, if it later turns out that a template like this _does_ need changing, it'll be a lot harder to fix everything if it's been substed everywhere.
I think most shorthand templates should be substituted for another reason as well as the technical side (although this is a risk even with the best-intentioned admins). Most templates are useful because they are fluid -- changes can be made on one page to affect a hundred related articles. That is excellent, and a good use of templates. However, shorthand templates aren't intended for that. They are intended to give a small bit of text quickly. The writer doesn't expect their text to change later.
But the provision is there: if at some time there comes a better method for linking to templates like that, it would be possible to seek out all the instances of {{tl}} and update them.
Alternatively, if the new solution is that mind-numbingly good, we could simply take a 10-minute hit on the servers, as when {{if}} was peremptorily splatted, and business can then proceed as usual.
Premature optimisation is not good, as any good programmer will tell you. This is why loops are unrolled by compilers, which allow you to write nice things like "for each I in list; do stuff; next I" and then optimise the code behind the scenes.
I would assume that novice users, when presented with a choice between something like "{{tl|some template}}" or "B;B;[[Template:Some template]]D;D;", would much rather the former, which actually explains what the fsck it's doing (it's a *t*emplate *l*ink, nudge, nudge), and might even get some understanding of what this transclusion lark is all about.
If we could persuade a friendly developer to take a look at the transclusion code, I think there must be huge potential for optimisation. Apparently there's some cruft in there which treats each different invocation of any given template as a *totally separate template*. So if you have {{tl|one template}} and {{tl|another template}}, the code fetches {{tl}} TWICE, which is fairly daft.
Heck, this is the sort of thing I might be able to take a punt at; unfortunately my access is through an office firewall and downloading Mediawiki onto this workstation just wouldn't be politic. With a bit of luck I should be getting broadband at home some time soon and then I can put my code where my mouth is.
In the meantime, I would rather that the template-deletionists could simply take a chill pill and stop causing ForestFires all over the damn place.
</rant style = sorry !>
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 1/6/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea. Is there some way this can be done on a per-namespace basis, though? A lot of Wikipedia: pages (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Template messages]]) transclude a lot of templates; the use of {{tl}} has also become quite pervasive, both in Wikipedia: and in Talk:
{{tl}} should be substituted.
Does it work when substituted now? I know there were some issues with that before.
Yes, I fixed it (and some templates which were using ~~~~) quite a long time ago, by changing the <nowiki>s to character entity references...
Anthere wrote:
Technical idea : limit the number of templates on a page ?
I don't think it would help. The first 'solution' would be a pyramid scheme... if you can only call five templates then the userpage would call five template pages... which would each call five template pages... et cetera.
So then we start cracking down on that (it's meta-templating)... and some clever person eventually realizes that there is no reason whatsoever that each userbox has to be a separate template. You could include every userbox on wikipedia into a single template call. That might limit the order in which they appear, but I think that could be worked out as well.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere
Which hand is used to masturbate self is of no interest within wikipedia activity, except if one is actually masturbating himself while writing a message on another user talk page. Is that related to Wikipedia ? Is that helping the community ? No. So, it should go away.
Having a template stating something against our goals, such as {{User allow fairuse}} has a name : it is trolling. Trolling has benefits... sometimes. But if it disrupts the community too much (and generate thousands of mails on a mailing list, huge loss of time), then, it should just go away.
What's that they say about feeding trolls?
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
--Jimbo
On 1/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
Jimbo,
What's your opinion on the inclusion of user categories (Pro-life, Democrat, etc...) in userboxes? Even if these userboxes are kept, I don't see why these templates should categorize users unless it somehow relates to the encyclopedia (we should keep Babel boxes, for example). I realize you'd like to remain neutral on the general issue of userboxes, but would you support the removal of categories from most userboxes?
Carbonite
Carbonite wrote:
What's your opinion on the inclusion of user categories (Pro-life, Democrat, etc...) in userboxes? Even if these userboxes are kept, I don't see why these templates should categorize users unless it somehow relates to the encyclopedia (we should keep Babel boxes, for example). I realize you'd like to remain neutral on the general issue of userboxes, but would you support the removal of categories from most userboxes?
I'm not going to be heavy handed about this, but I would recommend that as a general social rule, we try to refrain from self-identifying as advocates within the context of Wikipedia. Given that we're trying to work together collaboratively on a _neutral_ encyclopedia project, it seems to me to be not relevant and perhaps leaning towards the unhealthy to do so.
Let me give an example. I have a vague general understanding that my politics and David Gerard's politics are quite different. But, we basically never talk about this, and there's never any real reason to talk about this, because the ultimate point is that we're both firmly committed to kindness and neutrality and getting it right, and so our own personal opinions on various matters outside Wikipedia are pretty much no obstacle at all to our working together extremely well within Wikipedia.
Most people outside Wikipedia assume that it must be, internally, some kind of grand struggle between what we might roughly call "the party of the left" and "the party of the right". In general, though, of course it is not. (Sometimes, on some pages, it sadly ends up being that way for short periods of time.)
On 1/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
Jimbo, I have a question. You think most userboxes should be deleted, and so do a bunch of other people, including me at this point. But it's clearly not a supermajority, so almost all userboxes are going to be kept if people stay within process (the one above may be an exception). In fact, as we've seen, there are a lot of people who want to change policy about fairuse images in user space for the sake of the boxes; maybe they could even change *that* we followed the usual consensus-based procedure for adopting policy.
I've become more and more convinced that the inmates are indeed running the asylum on these issues, so my question to you is: what do you think we (as ordinary users who agree with your non-decree) should do?
SCZenz
SCZenz wrote:
I've become more and more convinced that the inmates are indeed running the asylum on these issues, so my question to you is: what do you think we (as ordinary users who agree with your non-decree) should do?
Work gently to build a friendly loving culture in which outright partisanship is discouraged, while individuality and an appreciation for differences is valued. Sometimes, of course, individuality and differences are manifested in outright partisanship, so there's no simple answer to how to draw the line between the two.
I mostly worry about userboxes being a leveragepoint for the building of political factions within Wikipedia. (And I don't mean "wikipedia politics" like "deletionists/inclusionists" but actual politics like "The Association of Anti-Evolutionist Wikipedians" who might want to turn wikipedia articles into ideological battlegrounds.)
Mostly I would like to see people not beating each other up about this. :) I have a preference here for a social attitude that "here we are Wikipedians," meaning: let's leave our political fights at the door to the greatest extent that we can.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
I've become more and more convinced that the inmates are indeed running the asylum on these issues, so my question to you is: what do you think we (as ordinary users who agree with your non-decree) should do?
Work gently to build a friendly loving culture in which outright partisanship is discouraged, while individuality and an appreciation for differences is valued. Sometimes, of course, individuality and differences are manifested in outright partisanship, so there's no simple answer to how to draw the line between the two.
I mostly worry about userboxes being a leveragepoint for the building of political factions within Wikipedia. (And I don't mean "wikipedia politics" like "deletionists/inclusionists" but actual politics like "The Association of Anti-Evolutionist Wikipedians" who might want to turn wikipedia articles into ideological battlegrounds.)
Mostly I would like to see people not beating each other up about this. :) I have a preference here for a social attitude that "here we are Wikipedians," meaning: let's leave our political fights at the door to the greatest extent that we can.
--Jimbo
I strongly agree with this. IMO, attempting to factionalise (not merely putting a userbox identifying your political affiliations) is putting us on the slippery path to POV pushing/warring. I believe we need to, as Jimbo said, leave our views at the door while editing. For instance, I have very strong negative opinions of [[Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia]], [[Ketuanan Melayu]], [[Bumiputra]], etc. However, on [[Talk:Bumiputra]] I have strenuously argued against certain edits which I would ordinarily (in real life) agree with. However, leaving my political views at the door, I viewed those edits as unacceptable under our NPOV policy. If this is something we can all agree on, I would have no problem with "political" userboxes; after all, I have one of them myself.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 1/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
--Jimbo
Fair use issue has mostly been solved. There are few hold outs but nothing that can't be delt with within normal process
-- geni
How about an arbitrary rule, maximum of 5 userboxes on any user page?
Fred
On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:12 To: English Wikipedia Cc: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] userbox : insanity ?
How about an arbitrary rule, maximum of 5 userboxes on any user page?
Sounds good, but may I suggest that before enforcing it, make sure that every admin is fully compliant, otherwise it will seen arbitrary and hypocritical.
Actually, when it comes to brightly coloured extraneous gumph on user pages, admins seem to be worse offenders than most, probably because they tend to have been around for a while and accumulated flashy little boxes and pix and templates.
How about making it five *templates* maximum on a user page?
Peter (Skyring)
The problem with that is that, well, it's arbitrary. Either the boxes are a problem or they aren't, but if the concern is the networking of POV pushers, limiting the number won't prevent people from doing that, it will just cause them to list their 5 favorite POVs. If the concern is technical or aesthetic, then I'm sure we could deal with a slightly higher number, like 10 or 20.
If we do set a limit, I feel strongly that the Babel boxes should be exempt because I don't think people should be penalized for being multilingual.
On 1/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How about an arbitrary rule, maximum of 5 userboxes on any user page?
On Friday 06 January 2006 16:34, Rob wrote:
If the concern is technical or aesthetic,
If the concern is aesthetic, then there's no reason to set a limit at all.
On 1/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How about an arbitrary rule, maximum of 5 userboxes on any user page?
I have seven on mine, and don't see as though I have to give them up. Someone who speaks more than five languages wouldn't even be allowed all their babel boxes with that rule.
Kelly
On 1/6/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How about an arbitrary rule, maximum of 5 userboxes on any user page?
Fred
On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SCZenz wrote:
How about {{User allow fairuse}}? That seems to be against pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. If we have so many users who think they can *vote* in an unreasonable copyright policy, maybe we need unilateral admin action after all.
I deleted that one myself.
And then, upon a request on my talk page, undeleted it. I'll let the TfD run its course.
I'm in favor of deleting a ton of userboxes, especially those with non-free images, but frankly, I think we should get rid of most of them anyway. (This is not a decree and I'm trying to stay out of the userbox wars myself. Mostly.)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
Oh my. This takes the cake. I think we're at the point where we can start mass-deleting the little userboxes for the good of Wikipedia.
If we don't start now, crap like this will just spread. It's time to put out the fire. In regards to the few useful userboxes, I'm afraid that sometimes, good trees get burnt with the bad.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
I'm not opposed, although I think we could be a little more selective, but I ask again: how? We need either a consensus among administrators or a ruling from Jimbo to do something that the bulk of users are opposed to, or the results will be more chaos.
SCZenz
On 1/5/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
ant
Oh my. This takes the cake. I think we're at the point where we can start mass-deleting the little userboxes for the good of Wikipedia.
If we don't start now, crap like this will just spread. It's time to put out the fire. In regards to the few useful userboxes, I'm afraid that sometimes, good trees get burnt with the bad.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Taking away peoples user boxes is pointless and disruptive. Admins who think they should defy consensus to delete peoples self labels are out of line. I understand that discussing mastrabation is in bad taste. So are ALOT of user pages. I have been very disturbed by users whose pages tell me they are into Satanism, are a "perverted trannfag", or have a giant che image or soviet star. The single most disruptive user page I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice
and it has no user boxes.
If there are real objections, craft real policy to deal w them. Do not persecute a popular trend in a disruptive manner. That just reinforces rebellion and resentment against haughty admins.
Sam Spade
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat/Archive/2006/01#New_user_box
for an explanation for the mastrabating user box. It was ment to be a disruptive, offensive insult, and is in no way indicative of a larger trend toward increasingly unreasonable userboxes.
Sam Spade
On 1/6/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Taking away peoples user boxes is pointless and disruptive. Admins who think they should defy consensus to delete peoples self labels are out of line. I understand that discussing mastrabation is in bad taste. So are ALOT of user pages. I have been very disturbed by users whose pages tell me they are into Satanism, are a "perverted trannfag", or have a giant che image or soviet star. The single most disruptive user page I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice
and it has no user boxes.
If there are real objections, craft real policy to deal w them. Do not persecute a popular trend in a disruptive manner. That just reinforces rebellion and resentment against haughty admins.
Sam Spade
Sam Spade wrote:
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat/Archive/2006/01#New_user_box
for an explanation for the mastrabating user box. It was ment to be a disruptive, offensive insult, and is in no way indicative of a larger trend toward increasingly unreasonable userboxes.
Sam Spade
Sorry, but that's not the case at all. I made that userbox after stumbling upon Cool Cat's page and seeing the massive list of userboxes there. When I made it I was unaware of any controversy surrounding them, I just took one look at that list which seemed to have a box for everything and made the masturbation one as a parody of this whole userbox thing. So yes, it is indicative of a larger trend toward increasingly unreasonable userboxes.
Kevin.
On 1/6/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Taking away peoples user boxes is pointless and disruptive. Admins who think they should defy consensus to delete peoples self labels are out of line. I understand that discussing mastrabation is in bad taste. So are ALOT of user pages. I have been very disturbed by users whose pages tell me they are into Satanism, are a "perverted trannfag", or have a giant che image or soviet star. The single most disruptive user page I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice
and it has no user boxes.
If there are real objections, craft real policy to deal w them. Do not persecute a popular trend in a disruptive manner. That just reinforces rebellion and resentment against haughty admins.
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
Sam Spade wrote:
Taking away peoples user boxes is pointless and disruptive. Admins who think they should defy consensus to delete peoples self labels are out of line. I understand that discussing mastrabation is in bad taste. So are ALOT of user pages. I have been very disturbed by users whose pages tell me they are into Satanism, are a "perverted trannfag", or have a giant che image or soviet star. The single most disruptive user page I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice
and it has no user boxes.
If there are real objections, craft real policy to deal w them. Do not persecute a popular trend in a disruptive manner. That just reinforces rebellion and resentment against haughty admins.
Sam Spade
?????????
yes, I think it is high time for a policy if common sense does not prevail...
ant
Why is it that I agree with Sam Spade? Honestly, I still do not see what all the fuss is about. Let people play with their silly trinkets. They will tire of them and make new trinkets later. All you do in heaping so much attention on one particular trinket is guarantee its prolonged existence.
FF
On 1/6/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Taking away peoples user boxes is pointless and disruptive. Admins who think they should defy consensus to delete peoples self labels are out of line. I understand that discussing mastrabation is in bad taste. So are ALOT of user pages. I have been very disturbed by users whose pages tell me they are into Satanism, are a "perverted trannfag", or have a giant che image or soviet star. The single most disruptive user page I know is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice
and it has no user boxes.
If there are real objections, craft real policy to deal w them. Do not persecute a popular trend in a disruptive manner. That just reinforces rebellion and resentment against haughty admins.
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
On 1/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it that I agree with Sam Spade? Honestly, I still do not see what all the fuss is about. Let people play with their silly trinkets. They will tire of them and make new trinkets later. All you do in heaping so much attention on one particular trinket is guarantee its prolonged existence.
Then we should make userboxes nothing more than silly trinkets. They should be snippets of code that someone adds to their user page and nothing more. Just a few simple ground rules: No fair use images and no user categories. I think that the opposition would pretty much disappear if userboxes truly were nothing more than a box with some text.
Carbonite
On 1/8/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Then we should make userboxes nothing more than silly trinkets. They should be snippets of code that someone adds to their user page and nothing more. Just a few simple ground rules: No fair use images and no user categories. I think that the opposition would pretty much disappear if userboxes truly were nothing more than a box with some text.
I'd also like compulsory substituting, though I could live without.
-- Sam
Both of these are issues which can be dealt with independently from the userbox question.
1. Should fair use images be allowed on user pages? Most people on here seem to conclude "no" on this subject in general, and it's the current policy, so that seems fairly straightforward.
2. Should user categories be allowed in general? I don't personally have a strong opinion on this (I don't see the problem, personally -- if people are going to bloc vote, assuming that is the issue, they have no problem doing that as it is. All one has to do to find sympathetic editors to a given POV is to look at the edit histories of contentious articles.) but surely a decision can be reached.
3. Should templates on user pages which are purely for decoration be auto-substituted? If there's an argument to be made about server performance, then okay, this should also be fairly straightforward.
Taking care of these issues as *general* issues and not related to one specific fad is the way to extinguish whatever actual problems there are without being idiosyncratic and draconian about it.
FF
On 1/8/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/8/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it that I agree with Sam Spade? Honestly, I still do not see what all the fuss is about. Let people play with their silly trinkets. They will tire of them and make new trinkets later. All you do in heaping so much attention on one particular trinket is guarantee its prolonged existence.
Then we should make userboxes nothing more than silly trinkets. They should be snippets of code that someone adds to their user page and nothing more. Just a few simple ground rules: No fair use images and no user categories. I think that the opposition would pretty much disappear if userboxes truly were nothing more than a box with some text.
Carbonite _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
Taking care of these issues as *general* issues and not related to one specific fad is the way to extinguish whatever actual problems there are without being idiosyncratic and draconian about it.
Seems to me that userboxes are the symptom, rather than the cause, of a certain malaise in Wikipedia.
I'd like to see moves toward encouragement and co-operation, rather than demonisation.
If frivolous userboxes are causing a load on the server that noticably slows down the site for everybody, then that is cause to act with speed and authority, but short of that, any high-handed remedy is merely going to fuel the fire.
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced editors. Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
On BookCrossing.com, we have a couple of numbers that appear after the names of users, and these show the level of participation in the general activity of the site. Perhaps it might be useful to add in some numbers after Wikipedia names, and I'd suggest number of edits in articlespace and length of membership in days, which would show at a glance a rough idea of how valuable a particular editor is. If that doesn't put too much load on the servers, that is.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced editors. Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
The difference is experienced users tend to contribute to article space as well. Many userbox fanatics make minimal or no edits to articles. (Of course, most people with userboxes aren't fanatics; I have quite a few userboxes myself. But there are a few rogue bunch out there who seem more intent on userboxes than building an encyclopedia.) I agree that this is probably a symptom of a larger problem, though - people forgetting we're here to build an encyclopedia, not play. Playing is fine, as long as you build the encyclopedia while you're at it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced
editors.
Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
The difference is experienced users tend to contribute to article space as well.
So do inexperienced users.
Many userbox fanatics make minimal or no edits to articles. (Of course, most people with userboxes aren't fanatics; I have quite a few userboxes myself. But there are a few rogue bunch out there who seem more intent on userboxes than building an encyclopedia.) I agree that this is probably a symptom of a larger problem, though - people forgetting we're here to build an encyclopedia, not play.
I think it goes deeper than that. I think that some new editors are being made to feel that they are not part of the established WP community and consequently they are "acting up". This is the same "old hands" vs "young Turks" divide I see on other sites and indeed in real life. This is not to say that all old hands are pitted against all new arrivals, but it's a noisy minority at both ends of the spectrum who are stirring things up.
Peter (Skyring)
I think that some new editors are being made to feel that they are not part of the established WP community and consequently they are "acting up". This is the same "old hands" vs "young Turks" divide I see on other sites and indeed in real life. This is not to say that all old hands are pitted against all new arrivals, but it's a noisy minority at both ends of the spectrum who are stirring things up.
Peter (Skyring)
Indeed, reminds me of how I was mistreated when i first came to the wiki. Things certainly havn't gotten much better since then...
Sam Spade
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced editors. Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
The difference is experienced users tend to contribute to article space as well. Many userbox fanatics make minimal or no edits to articles. (Of course, most people with userboxes aren't fanatics; I have quite a few userboxes myself. But there are a few rogue bunch out there who seem more intent on userboxes than building an encyclopedia.)
Take a look at the edits of [[User:Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:Anthere]]. There are productive things to do other than edit articles. (This is not at all to knock their contributions, it is instead to knock the notion that article count means everything).
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
Take a look at the edits of [[User:Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:Anthere]]. There are productive things to do other than edit articles. (This is not at all to knock their contributions, it is instead to knock the notion that article count means everything).
Mmm, but if new editors got stuck into the same sorts of activity as Jimbo, my eyebrows would assume the shape of the Golden Arches.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
Take a look at the edits of [[User:Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:Anthere]]. There are productive things to do other than edit articles. (This is not at all to knock their contributions, it is instead to knock the notion that article count means everything).
Mmm, but if new editors got stuck into the same sorts of activity as Jimbo, my eyebrows would assume the shape of the Golden Arches.
Peter (Skyring)
So new editors should stick to announcing edicts, begging for money, telling people that they're too stupid to make an encyclopedia, and travelling the world on the foundations dollar?
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced editors. Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
The difference is experienced users tend to contribute to article space as well. Many userbox fanatics make minimal or no edits to articles. (Of course, most people with userboxes aren't fanatics; I have quite a few userboxes myself. But there are a few rogue bunch out there who seem more intent on userboxes than building an encyclopedia.)
Take a look at the edits of [[User:Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:Anthere]]. There are productive things to do other than edit articles. (This is not at all to knock their contributions, it is instead to knock the notion that article count means everything).
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
If people are using Wikipedia to play rather than build an encyclopaedia, then they should be encouraged in this primary objective, not castigated for extraneous activies, because for every frivolous userbox, I dare say if I went looking, I could find some other piece of useless guff on the user pages of experienced editors. Let people play, if it does no harm and they are participating in community activities, but also encourage them to be more productive.
The difference is experienced users tend to contribute to article space as well. Many userbox fanatics make minimal or no edits to articles. (Of course, most people with userboxes aren't fanatics; I have quite a few userboxes myself. But there are a few rogue bunch out there who seem more intent on userboxes than building an encyclopedia.)
Take a look at the edits of [[User:Jimbo Wales]] and [[User:Anthere]]. There are productive things to do other than edit articles. (This is not at all to knock their contributions, it is instead to knock the notion that article count means everything).
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
So, it's bad to not make many article edits. And the response to my comment that there are board members and arbcom members who don't make many article edits is that it's OK, because they're board members and arbcom members?
I'm sorry, but that seems circular to me. I think there are lots of ways to improve Wikipedia which don't involve any article editing, and most of them don't involve admin powers either.
Now let me completely change the topic because I noticed this on one of Kelly's edits, [[User talk:Croc Hunter]]: "This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has edited from, or was created from, the IP address 204.13.170.30, which has been identified as a probable compromised webhost or open proxy."
Is it now a bannable offense simply to edit from an open proxy? If so, I'm sure the people over at the or-talk list will be interested to hear this.
Anthony
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it now a bannable offense simply to edit from an open proxy? If so, I'm sure the people over at the or-talk list will be interested to hear this.
Anthony
Yep has been for ages.
-- geni
On 1/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is it now a bannable offense simply to edit from an open proxy? If so, I'm sure the people over at the or-talk list will be interested to hear this.
Anthony
Yep has been for ages.
-- geni
It has been for "ages"? I have to say I was completely unaware of that. I knew the IPs of open proxies could be blocked, but not that people who merely edit using those IPs could be. In fact, I've used open proxies to edit as recently as a few months ago and I was never banned because of this.
What about people (like me, but I really don't care about myself) who run open proxies on their home computer? They can be permabanned?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
What about people (like me, but I really don't care about myself) who run open proxies on their home computer? They can be permabanned?
You're running an *open* proxy? Open proxies are typically used for DDOS attack and suchlike. It's a really unwise idea to run an open proxy. I'm surprised that you haven't already been blacklisted by a number of those DNS database things.
Chris
On 1/10/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
What about people (like me, but I really don't care about myself) who run open proxies on their home computer? They can be permabanned?
You're running an *open* proxy? Open proxies are typically used for DDOS attack and suchlike. It's a really unwise idea to run an open proxy. I'm surprised that you haven't already been blacklisted by a number of those DNS database things.
Chris
Yes, I'm running an open proxy, specifically a proxy which anonymizes http connections. See http://tor.eff.org/. It's not useful for DDOS attacks, really, as the one I run only forwards well-formed port 80 traffic at the same rate as you send it in (and even then, tor is kind of slow). And the vast majority of blacklists are smart enough not to list proxies which don't forward SMTP. That said, I use gmail for my email anyway, so if I am blacklisted I probably wouldn't even know it.
The fact that Wikipedia would block someone's *user account* because they have at one point run such a proxy makes pretty much zero sense.
Anthony
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/10/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
What about people (like me, but I really don't care about myself) who run open proxies on their home computer? They can be permabanned?
You're running an *open* proxy? Open proxies are typically used for DDOS attack and suchlike. It's a really unwise idea to run an open proxy. I'm surprised that you haven't already been blacklisted by a number of those DNS database things.
Chris
Yes, I'm running an open proxy, specifically a proxy which anonymizes http connections. See http://tor.eff.org/. It's not useful for DDOS attacks, really, as the one I run only forwards well-formed port 80 traffic at the same rate as you send it in (and even then, tor is kind of slow). And the vast majority of blacklists are smart enough not to list proxies which don't forward SMTP. That said, I use gmail for my email anyway, so if I am blacklisted I probably wouldn't even know it.
The fact that Wikipedia would block someone's *user account* because they have at one point run such a proxy makes pretty much zero sense.
Anthony
I was also of the impression that the only reason an IP would be blocked because the user used it was to prevent issues with recently-blocked users. What's the point of recommending someone sign up for an account, and advertising that you get benefits over an IP account, only to be told your IP is invalid?
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90601101110n590dc1c4j45a6d17d6a112da8@mail.gmail.com... On 1/10/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
[snip]
You're running an *open* proxy? Open proxies are typically used for DDOS attack and suchlike. It's a really unwise idea to run an open proxy. I'm surprised that you haven't already been blacklisted by a number of those DNS database things.
Yes, I'm running an open proxy, specifically a proxy which anonymizes http connections. See http://tor.eff.org/.
That's not an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_proxy, that's an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Router which is an entirely different beast.
The fact that Wikipedia would block someone's *user account* because they have at one point run such a proxy makes pretty much zero sense.
An Onion Router, yes. An Open Proxy: nuke them until they glow and then blow them away in the dark.
An Open Proxy is what those viruses and worms are trying to make your machine into: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet.
HTH HAND
On 1/11/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90601101110n590dc1c4j45a6d17d6a112da8@mail.gmail.com... On 1/10/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
[snip]
You're running an *open* proxy? Open proxies are typically used for DDOS attack and suchlike. It's a really unwise idea to run an open proxy. I'm surprised that you haven't already been blacklisted by a number of those DNS database things.
Yes, I'm running an open proxy, specifically a proxy which anonymizes http connections. See http://tor.eff.org/.
That's not an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_proxy, that's an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Router which is an entirely different beast.
I suppose you'll excuse my confusion which is based on the fact that Tor exit node IP addresses are regularly blocked as open proxies :).
Thanks for the clarification, Anthony
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90601110429s40cd6cdby363bfb3d01010c9e@mail.gmail.com... On 1/11/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Anthony DiPierro" wikilegal@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90601101110n590dc1c4j45a6d17d6a112da8@mail.gmail.com... On 1/10/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'm running an open proxy, specifically a proxy which anonymizes http connections. See http://tor.eff.org/.
That's not an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_proxy, that's an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Router which is an entirely different
beast.
I suppose you'll excuse my confusion which is based on the fact that Tor exit node IP addresses are regularly blocked as open proxies :).
You're not alone: I came across a certain amount of confusion whilst I was looking those up.
In one place there's a notice that Tor users are not welcome on Wikipedia because of the capacity for anonymous vandalism.
OTOH I also found instructions for Tor users in China to get around the problem accessing Wikipedia from that country.
Strikes me that the latter would be pointless if the former always held true...
HTH HAND
On 1/11/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
You're not alone: I came across a certain amount of confusion whilst I was looking those up.
In one place there's a notice that Tor users are not welcome on Wikipedia because of the capacity for anonymous vandalism.
OTOH I also found instructions for Tor users in China to get around the problem accessing Wikipedia from that country.
Where are those notice and instruction? We should set up a page specifically addressing dealing with Tor, and all of these confusions.
SJ
"SJ" 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote in message news:742dfd060601120755n3e55af2cvc0e0f0b99796a985@mail.gmail.com... On 1/11/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Where are those notice and instruction?
In one place there's a notice that Tor users are not welcome on Wikipedia because of the capacity for anonymous vandalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Etiquette_and_abuse
http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00233.html
OTOH I also found instructions for Tor users in China to get around the problem accessing Wikipedia from that country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China
which was formally announced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-31/China_b...
We should set up a page specifically addressing dealing with Tor, and all of these confusions.
{{sofixit}} :-}
HTH HAND
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
So, it's bad to not make many article edits. And the response to my comment that there are board members and arbcom members who don't make many article edits is that it's OK, because they're board members and arbcom members?
I'm sorry, but that seems circular to me. I think there are lots of ways to improve Wikipedia which don't involve any article editing, and most of them don't involve admin powers either.
<snip>
Anthony
I don't consider it circular reasoning. These people have gained the trust of the community to perform certain tasks that ordinary/new editors may not (at least without getting in hot soup). They are building the encyclopedia, too. I don't care if they create a billion userboxes (provided this doesn't overload the servers), as long as they continue helping out to build the encyclopedia. Article editing is but one metric for measuring this enyclopedia-building quotient, but it generally applies to all editors unless they have other duties that do not involve article editing but do involve encyclopedia-building. And if you can think of ways to build an encyclopedia without editing or gaining the trust of the community, please, do share.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
So, it's bad to not make many article edits. And the response to my comment that there are board members and arbcom members who don't make many article edits is that it's OK, because they're board members and arbcom members?
I'm sorry, but that seems circular to me. I think there are lots of ways to improve Wikipedia which don't involve any article editing, and most of them don't involve admin powers either.
<snip>
Anthony
I don't consider it circular reasoning. These people have gained the trust of the community to perform certain tasks that ordinary/new editors may not (at least without getting in hot soup). They are building the encyclopedia, too. I don't care if they create a billion userboxes (provided this doesn't overload the servers), as long as they continue helping out to build the encyclopedia. Article editing is but one metric for measuring this enyclopedia-building quotient, but it generally applies to all editors unless they have other duties that do not involve article editing but do involve encyclopedia-building. And if you can think of ways to build an encyclopedia without editing or gaining the trust of the community, please, do share.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
So, it's bad to not make many article edits. And the response to my comment that there are board members and arbcom members who don't make many article edits is that it's OK, because they're board members and arbcom members?
I'm sorry, but that seems circular to me. I think there are lots of ways to improve Wikipedia which don't involve any article editing, and most of them don't involve admin powers either.
Now let me completely change the topic because I noticed this on one of Kelly's edits, [[User talk:Croc Hunter]]: "This account has been blocked indefinitely because it has edited from, or was created from, the IP address 204.13.170.30, which has been identified as a probable compromised webhost or open proxy."
Is it now a bannable offense simply to edit from an open proxy? If so, I'm sure the people over at the or-talk list will be interested to hear this.
I've used open proxies for editing in order to determine that those proxies are indeed open and capable of editing. Does that mean that I should be banned simply because I "used an open proxy to edit Wikipedia"?
Well, I guess if you *do* get hold of an open proxy that works (many don't, and it's easy to tell that they don't by the way they mangle pages), don't tell anyone that you've got it...
Suppose I were to use an "open" proxy because my regular IP has been blocked (an ISP's shared proxy); would I be blocked for that? Or should I get my ISP's proxy unblocked so that the half dozen morons who are vandalising can continue at leisure?
Bug 550 needs fixing, fast.
On 1/10/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
I don't have anything really more to add except to say that this is the best and most concise statement so far I have seen encapsulating the ridiculous irony of the whole situation.
FF
I think there is a genuine fear of factions or parties and the host of actions which might follow. This was highlighted by what seemed to be attempts to organize a Catholic faction. Part of the problem is potential escalation. First there is point of view editing, then tag team reverting, alerts to other members of the faction. Then imagine an arbitration case and we, looking at these folks, make some kind of remedy. Then all the usual kicking and screaming and politicing which follows what is perceived as an unfair decision follows. Whether an administrator enforces the remedy becomes an issue of whether there is anti-catholic bias and so on. Arbitrators are googled to see if they ever engaged in Catholic or Protestant activity, etc.
Substitute communist or anti-communist for Catholic and take a look at the Nobs case for a real life example.
The problem is real, but it is in the context that we not only don't want to exclude people with strong points of view but welcome them for what they can add to articles which relate to their point of view. So I think the problem is not preventing factions but insisting that those who share a point of view act responsibly within the policies and purpose of Wikipedia.
Actually any Wikipedia project serves as an organizing vehicle for factions. We certainly would not want to hamper Wikipedia projects.
Fred
On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Fastfission wrote:
Should user categories be allowed in general? I don't personally have a strong opinion on this (I don't see the problem, personally -- if people are going to bloc vote, assuming that is the issue, they have no problem doing that as it is. All one has to do to find sympathetic editors to a given POV is to look at the edit histories of contentious articles.) but surely a decision can be reached.
On 1/10/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think there is a genuine fear of factions or parties and the host of actions which might follow. This was highlighted by what seemed to be attempts to organize a Catholic faction. Part of the problem is potential escalation. First there is point of view editing, then tag team reverting, alerts to other members of the faction. Then imagine an arbitration case and we, looking at these folks, make some kind of remedy. Then all the usual kicking and screaming and politicing which follows what is perceived as an unfair decision follows. Whether an administrator enforces the remedy becomes an issue of whether there is anti-catholic bias and so on. Arbitrators are googled to see if they ever engaged in Catholic or Protestant activity, etc.
I think userboxes should only be allowed for users who don't edit war or push a POV. But then again, I think editing should only be allowed for such users.
Anthony
Well Fred has successfully confused me once again. No less than 5 times he's declared users did not "act in concert", yet refused three motions to provide a Finding of Fact. Oddly now, the very faction Fred expresses fear of has been created in response to the errors the ArbCom made in handling the case. And this phenomenea is discussed in the Laird Wilcox Report, the basis of the verifiable citations the ArbCom attributed to Nobs as "personal attacks".
nobs
On 1/10/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think there is a genuine fear of factions or parties and the host of actions which might follow. This was highlighted by what seemed to be attempts to organize a Catholic faction. Part of the problem is potential escalation. First there is point of view editing, then tag team reverting, alerts to other members of the faction. Then imagine an arbitration case and we, looking at these folks, make some kind of remedy. Then all the usual kicking and screaming and politicing which follows what is perceived as an unfair decision follows. Whether an administrator enforces the remedy becomes an issue of whether there is anti-catholic bias and so on. Arbitrators are googled to see if they ever engaged in Catholic or Protestant activity, etc.
Substitute communist or anti-communist for Catholic and take a look at the Nobs case for a real life example.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Well Fred has successfully confused me once again. No less than 5 times he's declared users did not "act in concert", yet refused three motions to provide a Finding of Fact. Oddly now, the very faction Fred expresses fear of has been created in response to the errors the ArbCom made in handling the case. And this phenomenea is discussed in the Laird Wilcox Report, the basis of the verifiable citations the ArbCom attributed to Nobs as "personal attacks".
Nobs, mate.
I gave up hoping for justice or fairness from the wikijudiciary a while back.
The fact is, if you do a lot of work for WP, you can be excused ANYTHING, even if there's a pile of hard evidence against you. And the longer you've been around the more you can get away with, mainly because you've got an established party of supporters to back you up and who will be offended if a decision goes against you.
Don't think that this place is subject to the same sort of standards you expect in a court of law or even the due process of a government body. It's just a website, and the people running the show are all busy doing other stuff and while they are happy to assume the rank and power of their position, their top priority isn't listening to you point out their shortcomings, it's getting an encyclopaedia built.
Accept that from your point of view the system is crooked and rigged and get on with it. Complaining about it only gets everyone offside.
As I discovered.
Peter (Skyring)
I discerned as much. The point is, the faction Fred is fearful of did not exist, until ArbCom railroaded some editors in response to the demands of an existing faction. The remedy to an imaginary problem only created the problem. Now the faction cries out for leadership. Pretending ideas don't exist or can be dealt with by censorship solves nothing.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Well Fred has successfully confused me once again. No less than 5 times he's declared users did not "act in concert", yet refused three motions to provide a Finding of Fact. Oddly now, the very faction Fred expresses fear of has been created in response to the errors the ArbCom made in handling the case. And this phenomenea is discussed in the Laird Wilcox Report, the basis of the verifiable citations the ArbCom attributed to Nobs as "personal attacks".
Nobs, mate.
I gave up hoping for justice or fairness from the wikijudiciary a while back.
The fact is, if you do a lot of work for WP, you can be excused ANYTHING, even if there's a pile of hard evidence against you. And the longer you've been around the more you can get away with, mainly because you've got an established party of supporters to back you up and who will be offended if a decision goes against you.
Don't think that this place is subject to the same sort of standards you expect in a court of law or even the due process of a government body. It's just a website, and the people running the show are all busy doing other stuff and while they are happy to assume the rank and power of their position, their top priority isn't listening to you point out their shortcomings, it's getting an encyclopaedia built.
Accept that from your point of view the system is crooked and rigged and get on with it. Complaining about it only gets everyone offside.
As I discovered.
Peter (Skyring)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kick against the pricks here and you get kicked back. At some stage you ask yourself just what you came here for in the first place, and if it's because you like people taking free kicks at you, then you probably shouldn't be here.
Peter (Skyring)
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 07:12 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] userbox : insanity ?
I discerned as much. The point is, the faction Fred is fearful of did not exist, until ArbCom railroaded some editors in response to the demands of an existing faction. The remedy to an imaginary problem only created the problem. Now the faction cries out for leadership. Pretending ideas don't exist or can be dealt with by censorship solves nothing.
To contribute content, not to join a social club or be targeted and smeared by ideological factions. My contributions can wait, they will endure the test of time, the ultimate test.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Kick against the pricks here and you get kicked back. At some stage you ask yourself just what you came here for in the first place, and if it's because you like people taking free kicks at you, then you probably shouldn't be here.
Peter (Skyring)
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 07:12 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] userbox : insanity ?
I discerned as much. The point is, the faction Fred is fearful of did not exist, until ArbCom railroaded some editors in response to the demands of an existing faction. The remedy to an imaginary problem only created the problem. Now the faction cries out for leadership. Pretending ideas don't exist or can be dealt with by censorship solves nothing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
To contribute content, not to join a social club or be targeted and smeared by ideological factions. My contributions can wait, they will endure the test of time, the ultimate test.
Well, in that case why don't you find a way that allows you to contribute without getting everybody including yourself hot and bothered?
Peter (Skyring)
Admittedly, there is alotta technical stuff I don't know, or the background of the project. As an exilee I got the time to study. But on return I'll have a few hundred (or thousand) articles to contribute.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
To contribute content, not to join a social club or be targeted and smeared by ideological factions. My contributions can wait, they will endure the test of time, the ultimate test.
Well, in that case why don't you find a way that allows you to contribute without getting everybody including yourself hot and bothered?
Peter (Skyring)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Admittedly, there is alotta technical stuff I don't know, or the background of the project. As an exilee I got the time to study. But on return I'll have a few hundred (or thousand) articles to contribute.
WP is just a website. If you have useful stuff to contribute, contribute it. Just don't stick your head up where it's going to get kicked.
Peter (Skyring)
I've read some portions of your case; the content issues are interesting. And I note Fred accepted as per the content issues. Feel free to give your perspective how the whole mess was handled.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Admittedly, there is alotta technical stuff I don't know, or the background of the project. As an exilee I got the time to study. But on return I'll have a few hundred (or thousand) articles to contribute.
WP is just a website. If you have useful stuff to contribute, contribute it. Just don't stick your head up where it's going to get kicked.
Peter (Skyring)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm not going to rehash old stuff. Fred's summarising for the Arbcom was quite mistaken, but in his defence he didn't understand the constitutional subleties and he didn't have time to go looking at all the arguments. I was naïve enough to think that the thing would be fully investigated, and I spent a lot of time being righteously outraged and making a damfool of myself.
Peter (Skyring)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
I've read some portions of your case; the content issues are interesting. And I note Fred accepted as per the content issues. Feel free to give your perspective how the whole mess was handled.
Similiar to my impressions. There are what, 9 or 12 Arbitrators? I think one examines the portions of a case he feels like examining, makes findings, and the rest rubber stamp it. It pays to have friends and past associations, the proper ideological convictions, or not be branded as something by users with the proper ideological convictions.
My case was humourous, after I called attention on the WP:Verifiabilty rewrite discussion & the Candidate election statements, that verifiabale citations were being used as evidence of personal attacks, the next day they pursued a different track, "editors with strong POV." What a comedy of errors.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I'm not going to rehash old stuff. Fred's summarising for the Arbcom was quite mistaken, but in his defence he didn't understand the constitutional subleties and he didn't have time to go looking at all the arguments. I was naïve enough to think that the thing would be fully investigated, and I spent a lot of time being righteously outraged and making a damfool of myself.
Peter (Skyring)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
I've read some portions of your case; the content issues are interesting. And I note Fred accepted as per the content issues. Feel free to give your perspective how the whole mess was handled.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
Don't think that this place is subject to the same sort of standards you expect in a court of law or even the due process of a government body. It's just a website, and the people running the show are all busy doing other stuff and while they are happy to assume the rank and power of their position, their top priority isn't listening to you point out their shortcomings, it's getting an encyclopaedia built.
Accept that from your point of view the system is crooked and rigged and get on with it. Complaining about it only gets everyone offside.
As I discovered.
Peter (Skyring)
I couldn't have put it better. [[WP:NOT]] a social experiment - it's an encyclopedia. For some people, this is too much to accept, but the rest of us who are here to write an encyclopedia couldn't care less.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
You can say it a thousand times, but when diligent contributors acting in good faith, are driven off by a political machine with an agenda of its own, nullifies the premise. It not only deters the goal of writing an encyclopedia, it risks the issues of validity and censorship.
nobs
On 1/12/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
Don't think that this place is subject to the same sort of standards you expect in a court of law or even the due process of a government body.
It's
just a website, and the people running the show are all busy doing other stuff and while they are happy to assume the rank and power of their position, their top priority isn't listening to you point out their shortcomings, it's getting an encyclopaedia built.
Accept that from your point of view the system is crooked and rigged and
get
on with it. Complaining about it only gets everyone offside.
As I discovered.
Peter (Skyring)
I couldn't have put it better. [[WP:NOT]] a social experiment - it's an encyclopedia. For some people, this is too much to accept, but the rest of us who are here to write an encyclopedia couldn't care less.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rob Smith wrote:
You can say it a thousand times, but when diligent contributors acting in good faith, are driven off by a political machine with an agenda of its own, nullifies the premise. It not only deters the goal of writing an encyclopedia, it risks the issues of validity and censorship.
nobs
Now, that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying. (And this is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are correct that there is a political cabal seeking to drive away opposing viewpoints.) I was saying Wikipedia is not a social experiment. It is a privately funded attempt to create an encyclopedia by allowing anyone to edit it, as long as they don't fall foul of the owners. Typically, the community/admins act as the owners by blocking people who fall foul of them, because the owners of Wikipedia (the Wikimedia Foundation) give them considerable autonomy to do so and set their own customs, etc. But the fact remains that this is a private enterprise, so if you don't like how the Wikimedia Foundation behaves, just up and leave. It won't hurt anyone if we end up producing a fucked up/censored encyclopedia, because private businesses and non-profits have no social obligations beyond following the law.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
All so true. But a "fucked up censored encyclopedia" would hurt the effort to be a valid and credible source, and thus no more than a waste of everyone's time.
nobs
On 1/13/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Rob Smith wrote:
You can say it a thousand times, but when diligent contributors acting in good faith, are driven off by a political machine with an agenda of its own, nullifies the premise. It not only deters the goal of writing an encyclopedia, it risks the issues of validity and censorship.
nobs
Now, that has nothing at all to do with what I was saying. (And this is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are correct that there is a political cabal seeking to drive away opposing viewpoints.) I was saying Wikipedia is not a social experiment. It is a privately funded attempt to create an encyclopedia by allowing anyone to edit it, as long as they don't fall foul of the owners. Typically, the community/admins act as the owners by blocking people who fall foul of them, because the owners of Wikipedia (the Wikimedia Foundation) give them considerable autonomy to do so and set their own customs, etc. But the fact remains that this is a private enterprise, so if you don't like how the Wikimedia Foundation behaves, just up and leave. It won't hurt anyone if we end up producing a fucked up/censored encyclopedia, because private businesses and non-profits have no social obligations beyond following the law.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Rob Smith stated for the record:
All so true. But a "fucked up censored encyclopedia" would hurt the effort to be a valid and credible source, and thus no more than a waste of everyone's time.
nobs
So stop wasting your time.
- -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org
On 1/13/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
<snip>
Don't think that this place is subject to the same sort of standards you expect in a court of law or even the due process of a government body.
It's
just a website, and the people running the show are all busy doing other stuff and while they are happy to assume the rank and power of their position, their top priority isn't listening to you point out their shortcomings, it's getting an encyclopaedia built.
Accept that from your point of view the system is crooked and rigged and
get
on with it. Complaining about it only gets everyone offside.
As I discovered.
Peter (Skyring)
I couldn't have put it better. [[WP:NOT]] a social experiment - it's an encyclopedia. For some people, this is too much to accept, but the rest of us who are here to write an encyclopedia couldn't care less.
To add to this, those who are here to fight vandals also couldn't care less about half of the WikiLawyering that goes on around here. Sometimes I think the people involved in that particular sector of the Wiki automagically assume that they're the only section of the Wiki anymore.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
I couldn't have put it better. [[WP:NOT]] a social
experiment - it's
an encyclopedia. For some people, this is too much to
accept, but the
rest of us who are here to write an encyclopedia couldn't care less.
To add to this, those who are here to fight vandals also couldn't care less about half of the WikiLawyering that goes on around here. Sometimes I think the people involved in that particular sector of the Wiki automagically assume that they're the only section of the Wiki anymore.
I can't say that I care much about the nuts and bolts of anyone else's disputes, but to be fair, when someone comes along here, gets treated unfairly and unjustly and finds that this applies all the way up, they feel entitled to have a complain about it.
The crowning irony is that nobody cares about the complaint. The relevant admins and Arbcom reckon they have done their job, and besides they have plenty of other work to get on with, and just about everyone else assumes that the ArbCom have worked through the issue and the complaint is unjustified.
The thing is that very little about Wikipedia's social government conforms to the standards one might expect from a real-world justice system or national government. We're somewhere else.
I'm not saying that the system is a total shambles, just that it's patchy. Much like WP itself. Some bits are really really good, some are OK, others need work and others suck.
And the complaints that make their way here aren't from vandals. We can recognise vandalism and act upon it swiftly.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/13/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
I couldn't have put it better. [[WP:NOT]] a social
experiment - it's
an encyclopedia. For some people, this is too much to
accept, but the
rest of us who are here to write an encyclopedia couldn't care less.
To add to this, those who are here to fight vandals also couldn't care less about half of the WikiLawyering that goes on around here. Sometimes I think the people involved in that particular sector of the Wiki automagically assume that they're the only section of the Wiki anymore.
I can't say that I care much about the nuts and bolts of anyone else's disputes, but to be fair, when someone comes along here, gets treated unfairly and unjustly and finds that this applies all the way up, they feel entitled to have a complain about it.
The crowning irony is that nobody cares about the complaint. The relevant admins and Arbcom reckon they have done their job, and besides they have plenty of other work to get on with, and just about everyone else assumes that the ArbCom have worked through the issue and the complaint is unjustified.
The thing is that very little about Wikipedia's social government conforms to the standards one might expect from a real-world justice system or national government. We're somewhere else.
I'm not saying that the system is a total shambles, just that it's patchy. Much like WP itself. Some bits are really really good, some are OK, others need work and others suck.
And the complaints that make their way here aren't from vandals. We can recognise vandalism and act upon it swiftly.
Peter (Skyring)
I may have been missing the point when I wrote that. What I was trying to point out is that just as some people are here to write an encyclopedia, not to get into fights, people like myself are here to fight vandalism, and so neither have time nor patience for knock-down drag-out content disputes.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Bingo. Let me set out clearly. I came to write articles. I contributed roughly 200 from April to August. Since August maybe 20. My production slowed as a result of concerted harassment by an ideologically driven clique. Yet 90 to 95% of my contributions are intact, and will remain intact. And I'm proud to see other articles are much improved -- not necessssarily by direct contribtions -- but by calling attention to interested editors (of whatever bias) to various problems.
As to the slanders & smears perpetrated against me by this clique, as a "POV warrior" or I engage in "personal attacks", any editor who has interacted with myself can and will attest, it's B.S.
nobs
On 1/13/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/13/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
some people are here to write an encyclopedia, not
to get into fights, people like myself are here to fight vandalism, and so neither have time nor patience for knock-down drag-out content disputes.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Peter Mackay wrote:
I can't say that I care much about the nuts and bolts of anyone else's disputes, but to be fair, when someone comes along here, gets treated unfairly and unjustly and finds that this applies all the way up, they feel entitled to have a complain about it.
The crowning irony is that nobody cares about the complaint. The relevant admins and Arbcom reckon they have done their job, and besides they have plenty of other work to get on with, and just about everyone else assumes that the ArbCom have worked through the issue and the complaint is unjustified.
The thing is that very little about Wikipedia's social government conforms to the standards one might expect from a real-world justice system or national government. We're somewhere else.
I'm not saying that the system is a total shambles, just that it's patchy. Much like WP itself. Some bits are really really good, some are OK, others need work and others suck.
And the complaints that make their way here aren't from vandals. We can recognise vandalism and act upon it swiftly.
Peter (Skyring)
Bingo. We're not a social experiment -- we're trying to build an encyclopedia. I don't see any encyclopedia projects running themselves like a real justice system or national government. Wikipedia does not exist to mete out justice to people who try to edit it. Nobody has an innate right to edit Wikipedia or be done justice by other people who edit it.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee
Bingo. We're not a social experiment -- we're trying to build an encyclopedia. I don't see any encyclopedia projects running themselves like a real justice system or national government. Wikipedia does not exist to mete out justice to people who try to edit it. Nobody has an innate right to edit Wikipedia or be done justice by other people who edit it.
Exactly. It's the only way to think of it. It's a corrupt, unfair, partisan shambles. Much like a frontier town council.
About all we are united in is the wish to improve the encyclopaedia and to beat off the vandals.
Peter (Skyring)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:48:40AM +1100, Peter Mackay wrote:
The fact is, if you do a lot of work for WP, you can be excused ANYTHING, even if there's a pile of hard evidence against you.
One counterexample is sufficient to disprove a blanket generality like that one.
Counterexample: Ed Poor.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Karl A. Krueger
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:48:40AM +1100, Peter Mackay wrote:
The fact is, if you do a lot of work for WP, you can be excused ANYTHING, even if there's a pile of hard evidence against you.
One counterexample is sufficient to disprove a blanket generality like that one.
Hmmm. I said "can", but you read it as "will".
-- Pete
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Anthere wrote:
I have not followed ANY of the discussion on userbox. Have no idea what is going on, no idea who supports what, no idea what is going on.
However, I just speedy deleted {{User masturbation-left}}.
It contained this image : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbationsm.jpg
Sorry if that appears like an admin abuse or whatever, but imho, this is just ***ridiculous***.
To repeat an opinion I expressed about another misuse/use of userboxes, doesn't this particular userbox fall under [[WP:POINT]]?
We already have the tools to deal with this problem. No need to pass a PATRIOT act, destroy Carthage & salt the earth, or take other extreme measures.
Geoff
P.S. Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to contribute to this thread. I'm off to wikify an article shortly.
Exactly. I'd like to have a repository of code for creating whatever userboxes people come up with. No fair use images or categories would be allowed. Userboxes that actually had an encyclopedic use (Babel boxes, for example) could remain as templates. This would seem to allow everyone to keep their userboxes and would remove the vast majority of complaints about them.
Carbonite
We already have the tools to deal with this problem. No need to pass a PATRIOT act, destroy Carthage & salt the earth, or take other extreme measures.
Geoff
P.S. Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to contribute to this thread. I'm off to wikify an article shortly.
These strike me as steps in the right direction. Arbitrary measures and unilateral decision making are not. People need to consider morale, rigour, and the appearance of impropriety. If there is a problem w process, change the process. Ignoring all rules is the problem, not the solution.
Have a look at my user page, Its nothing but templates basically. I even have a category someone put there. Does anyone see what I'm doing as a problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade
Sam Spade