List,
I wanted to say that I have been very disappointed. I realize this post will probably elicit a lot of "Duhs" or "You expected differently" type of responses, but I feel I must get my thoughts out there. Recently, I took almost all of the Wikipedia: namespace off of my watchlist. No more Administrator's noticeboard, no more requests for arbitration, no more deletion discussions or policy battles, none of that. I've been working on content and trying to just enjoy what Wikipedia is about. I joined this list because I often heard discussion referenced that I had not seen, and I decided to partake in this, as I still care deeply for the Wikipedia community as a whole, even though I am not editing project space. This list is supposed to be the place of meta discussion for Enwiki, to settle disputes and to discuss policy. Talk about the community and ways to improve it. However, after posting a little (and reading a whole lot more), I think it is painfully obvious:
This list does not serve the function it is intended to!
These threads are not about improving Wikipedia or how to handle vandals. No (good) policy discussion is going on--sans BADSITES, which everyone is really really sick of--and progress is not being made on anything. Instead, this list is nothing more than a personal attack forum and a avenue for trolls. Discussions are uncivil and countless threads are debated and lead nowhere. The entire thing basically reminds me of a gymnasium of elementary school kids, all trying to yell and have it "their way" because only they know best. I've seen quite a fair share of people on this list who are of the opinion that they're right simply because of who they are. I'm here to tell you that no one cares. The fact that you've been contributing since 1982 means nothing. To be perfectly honest, I have more faith in an anon who makes a single typo fix than over half the people on this list. I know my ranting will fall on deaf ears, and the bickering will continue on and off-wiki just as it has and will continue to do so.
I will no longer be posting to this list. I will remain subscribed and will read, hopefully one day seeing a community that appreciates the good faith efforts of others, even if they disagree. Hopefully one day this community will be able to accept criticism without immediately dismissing it as trolling. Hopefully one day this community will be civil and courteous when discussing, and won't talk with such an air of elitism. Hopefully one day this community will go back to what it was designed to do: producing a free content encyclopedia, instead of merely acting to perpetuate its existence. I invite you all today to join me in editing the encyclopedia. Pick an article, make it something you're interested in. Improve the article. If it doesn't exist, make it! Find sources! Clean up disambigs and excessive external links. Format, copyedit, write. Do what we're all supposedly here to do.
I'm going to edit now, will you join me?
-Chad H.
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
Phoenix-wiki
I consider myself a "casual wikignome" - when I read something on the mainspace, if I see it needs changing, I do it. Once in a great while I will write about something that interests me, but I don't make a hobby out of writing content on a regular basis.
I like reading the "behind the scenes" work that goes into administering the project even if I am not one of the peopel participating in it. That's why I'm here on this list.
Angela
On 28/11/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
It's a fatal trap for admins, and even more so once you accumulate a few more jobs (on the local wiki or cross-wiki/Foundation level), to never quite get around to doing the thing that was so much fun and lured you here in the first place, i.e. writing an encyclopedia ...
Bored? Sick to death of policy wrangling? Write something!
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/11/01/bored-policy-weary-write-something...
Also: If editing a wiki starts to lose its appeal but you want to be productive, there are many "wanted photos" lists on en:wp and on Commons for you to go out and fill out a bit.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/11/2007, Phoenix wiki wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
It's a fatal trap for admins, and even more so once you accumulate a few more jobs (on the local wiki or cross-wiki/Foundation level), to never quite get around to doing the thing that was so much fun and lured you here in the first place, i.e. writing an encyclopedia ...
In the real world I have encountered engineers who spent many years getting the required certification so that they can build things, but end up in company's management shuffling paper. :-)
Ec
On 28/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/11/2007, Phoenix wiki wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
It's a fatal trap for admins, and even more so once you accumulate a few more jobs (on the local wiki or cross-wiki/Foundation level), to never quite get around to doing the thing that was so much fun and lured you here in the first place, i.e. writing an encyclopedia ...
In the real world I have encountered engineers who spent many years getting the required certification so that they can build things, but end up in company's management shuffling paper. :-)
Of course, that could never happen to us. No no no.
(At my work we vastly enjoy making fun of techies who've made the mistake of going for one promotion too many and now spend their working lives ENTIRELY in Outlook and Excel, in that order. If they write any code we help them keep it secret from *their* boss.)
Brian McNeil (Wikinews) posted to foundation-l a suggestion of a Wikimedia toolbar for Firefox that would count your page views and suggest a cash donation to WMF when you'd reached 100 Wikimedia pages or whatever. I suggest an extra feature: you can pay in cash *or* effort - copyedit 20 pages, start 1 good new stub (three paragraphs and two references) or deal with one sad crippled orphan from {{cleanup}}. There is in fact a Wikipedia toolbar for Firefox:
- anyone want to add a donation-nag function?
- d.
On 28/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/11/2007, Phoenix wiki wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
It's a fatal trap for admins, and even more so once you accumulate a few more jobs (on the local wiki or cross-wiki/Foundation level), to never quite get around to doing the thing that was so much fun and lured you here in the first place, i.e. writing an encyclopedia ...
In the real world I have encountered engineers who spent many years getting the required certification so that they can build things, but end up in company's management shuffling paper. :-)
Of course, that could never happen to us. No no no.
(At my work we vastly enjoy making fun of techies who've made the mistake of going for one promotion too many and now spend their working lives ENTIRELY in Outlook and Excel, in that order. If they write any code we help them keep it secret from *their* boss.)
Brian McNeil (Wikinews) posted to foundation-l a suggestion of a Wikimedia toolbar for Firefox that would count your page views and suggest a cash donation to WMF when you'd reached 100 Wikimedia pages or whatever. I suggest an extra feature: you can pay in cash *or* effort - copyedit 20 pages, start 1 good new stub (three paragraphs and two references) or deal with one sad crippled orphan from {{cleanup}}. There is in fact a Wikipedia toolbar for Firefox:
- anyone want to add a donation-nag function?
No. I can rack up 100 page views in less than 5 min (normaly when cleaning out the fromowner backlog after being away for a week).
On Nov 28, 2007 5:50 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Brian McNeil (Wikinews) posted to foundation-l a suggestion of a Wikimedia toolbar for Firefox that would count your page views and suggest a cash donation to WMF when you'd reached 100 Wikimedia pages or whatever. I suggest an extra feature: you can pay in cash *or* effort
Let's see... 15,000 page requests/second = 473 billion requests per year for Wikipedia? At $4.7 million dollars to handle those requests that means I owe $0.00001 per page request. At a below minimum wage rate of $5/hour, I guess I owe 0.72 seconds of effort for every 100 Wikimedia pages I view.
Let's see... 15,000 page requests/second = 473 billion requests per year for Wikipedia? At $4.7 million dollars to handle those requests that means I owe $0.00001 per page request. At a below minimum wage rate of $5/hour, I guess I owe 0.72 seconds of effort for every 100 Wikimedia pages I view.
It's not a matter of "owing", it's a donation.
On Nov 28, 2007 7:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Let's see... 15,000 page requests/second = 473 billion requests per year for Wikipedia? At $4.7 million dollars to handle those requests that means I owe $0.00001 per page request. At a below minimum wage rate of $5/hour, I guess I owe 0.72 seconds of effort for every 100 Wikimedia pages I view.
It's not a matter of "owing", it's a donation.
In which case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many pages you view.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Let's see... 15,000 page requests/second = 473 billion requests per year for Wikipedia? At $4.7 million dollars to handle those requests that means I owe $0.00001 per page request. At a below minimum wage rate of $5/hour, I guess I owe 0.72 seconds of effort for every 100 Wikimedia pages I view.
It's not a matter of "owing", it's a donation.
We don't want to suggest 1¢ donations if they are going to use PayPal. We can wait for the pennies to arrive by snail mail. ;-)
Ec
plus we lose money when we only get a penny
On Nov 28, 2007 11:59 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Let's see... 15,000 page requests/second = 473 billion requests per year for Wikipedia? At $4.7 million dollars to handle those requests that means I owe $0.00001 per page request. At a below minimum wage rate of $5/hour, I guess I owe 0.72 seconds of effort for every 100 Wikimedia pages I view.
It's not a matter of "owing", it's a donation.
We don't want to suggest 1¢ donations if they are going to use PayPal. We can wait for the pennies to arrive by snail mail. ;-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/11/2007, Nicolas Montes placebo.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
plus we lose money when we only get a penny
I don't think we actually lose money, we just don't get any. As far as I know, paypal fees are capped at the size of the transaction.
On Thu, 2007-29-11 at 13:42 +0000, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Nicolas Montes placebo.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
plus we lose money when we only get a penny
I don't think we actually lose money, we just don't get any. As far as I know, paypal fees are capped at the size of the transaction.
At least if we're mailed the penny, we could melt it down for the zinc content. Oh, they made that illegal now, have they?
On 29/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
start 1 good new stub (three paragraphs and two references)
3 paragraphs counts as a stub?
Yeah stub inflation has been going on for years. That was why substub appeared and the topic based stubs really only speeded things up. Problem is people are not sure if they are meant to remove them so the article gets longer and longer with the notice still there them people compare to that article when deciding if their new article needs a stub notice.
On Nov 29, 2007 12:49 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah stub inflation has been going on for years. That was why substub appeared and the topic based stubs really only speeded things up. Problem is people are not sure if they are meant to remove them so the article gets longer and longer with the notice still there them people compare to that article when deciding if their new article needs a stub notice.
Stubflation?
On 28/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There is in fact a Wikipedia toolbar for Firefox:
Which appears to be incompatible with Firefox versions later than 1.5.*...
On 29/11/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There is in fact a Wikipedia toolbar for Firefox: http://wikipedia.mozdev.org/
Which appears to be incompatible with Firefox versions later than 1.5.*...
Yes, it obviously needs some loving attention.
- d.
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:10 +0000, Phoenix wiki wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
You mean where does the people on this list get the time to read through all of the 200 emails generated in less than 2 days, read through AN/I, RFAr, search through WR, WikiTruth and whatnot, and then to write a few of those many replies?
Talking of mainspace edits, I actually somehow ended up creating 4 new articles today (admittedly one of them was from AFC). 20% of my new articles count in just 1 day. Woohoo! :D
Procrastination can be such motivation...
KTC
On Nov 28, 2007 3:10 PM, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I was under the impresion that most of us edited edited the mainspace on a regular basis anyway. Maybe not...
Phoenix-wiki _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That'd be "not".
--John Reaves