From: Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au>
Reply-To: m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au,English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a cult
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:42:24 +1000
G'day Todd,
(Strewth, it was interesting trying to work out who said what in the
mish-mash of quotes here)
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>
> Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this
> thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3
letters
> :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within
the WP Community has been
a
> topic of discussion for some time now.
Perhaps someday that discussion
will
become
serious - with some serious, positive results.
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the
pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't
already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be
summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to
talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members,
being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are
"theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual
does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
You had me at "Hello" ...
I recently closed, something to the effect of
"This needs to run another
five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head
in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that
article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the
whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)
... and then lost me again.
Back In The Day, Wikiproject Australia kept tabs on Articles for
Deletion, watching for clueless Americans. And believe me, there were
*plenty* on offer. Some famous Australian (lead yodeller for the
Flaming Hairnets, say) was on the verge of being deleted because a
dickhead in his parents' basement in Iowa had never heard of him or,
indeed, anyone who wasn't from Iowa. Alternatively, some Australian
hoaxer was about to be kept because a wide-awake (but not wide-awake
*enough*) American said, "Stop! It says he's the King of New South
Wales, and that sounds pretty notable to me."
Wikiproject participants getting involved in AfD doesn't lead to
vote-stacking (a meaningless phrase to the Clueful, anyway). What it
generally means is that editors who actually know what they're talking
about get a dekko at the article and AfD discussion. This is a Good
Thing. It should *not* be discouraged.
Of course, it's up to the relevant Wikiproject to watch AfD. We
shouldn't go extending processes because nobody from a Wikiproject had a
relevant article on their watchlist.
This is, of course, only something one person
said, and may not at all
reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it
certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens
all too often.
No, it doesn't.
If you improved an article on, say, dihydrogen monoxide (the silent
killer!), and got reverted, and a Wikiproject Chemistry member said, "If
you want to edit here you have to join the Wikiproject", that's one
thing (it would also make a pretty cool movie, especially if you got
Robert De Niro to play the Chemistry project heavyweight).
If, on the other hand, you nominated an article on dihydrogen monoxide
for deletion ("Never heard of it, probably nn. No conceivable use IRL.
Probably a hoax by those Wikiproject Chemistry wankers. My vote is
'''strong speedy delete with cherries on top'''. ~~~~"),
and
Wikiproject Chemistry people flooded the AfD with big muscly smart
people, that would not be a Bad Thing. It would, in fact, be a Good Thing.
<snip/>
Cheers,
--
Mark Gallagher
Wew. Yes, but....
I agree. You're right. BUT, IMO this only works when the WikiProject is
stuffed full with clueful, (reasonably) adult people. Which many
WikiProjects are, and then the WikiProject people make far better
contributions at the relevant XfD than anyone else because they know the
subject matter; they are able to determine whether we actually can write a
good article on Topic X - which is what an awful lot of AFD boils down to.
But...sometimes you do get problems with WikiProjects at XfD, when Topic X
may be important in Fictional Universe X but not in the big scary real
world: then problems start. You tend to get discussion along the lines of
"But it's a major robot in the 5th episode of the 3rd series!", when what
you really want are discussions along the lines of "Can we demonstrate this
has any major real-world significance?"
Usually Wikiprojects at XfD are a Good Thing, but there are limits.
Cheers,
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!