I see the copyright issue as a valid one. If copyrighted images are being used inappropriately in the userboxes, then certainly the images should be removed.
Having said that...the vitriol I've seen expressed regarding userboxes seems to go above and beyond a concern for copyright laws. Barring a server issue, I have to ask, what's the fuss? Most of the arguments against them seem to boil down to "I don't like them, so, rather than just not have them on my own userpage, I don't want them on anyone else's either."
This whole thing reminds me of H. L. Mencken's joke about the definition of a Puritan: a person who is worried that someone, somewhere, someplace is having fun.
Joyous
On 1/3/06, Joy S wiki.joy@gmail.com wrote:
This whole thing reminds me of H. L. Mencken's joke about the definition of a Puritan: a person who is worried that someone, somewhere, someplace is having fun.
Most userboxes were just in fun, but there were a few quite mean-spirited ones that I saw - I'm sure people would insist they were "just joking", but I saw a fair few being used by people I didn't think were joking (based on their edits and expressions of opinion elsewhere).
-Matt
On 1/4/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/3/06, Joy S wiki.joy@gmail.com wrote:
This whole thing reminds me of H. L. Mencken's joke about the definition of a Puritan: a person who is worried that someone, somewhere, someplace is having fun.
Most userboxes were just in fun, but there were a few quite mean-spirited ones that I saw - I'm sure people would insist they were "just joking", but I saw a fair few being used by people I didn't think were joking (based on their edits and expressions of opinion elsewhere).
-Matt
If users are engaging in personal attacks, racism, homophobia, or what have you in userboxes, talk pages, wikipedia_talk pages, or anywhere else on WP, that should be dealt with in terms of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and their sister policies. Not in terms of userboxes being a bad thing, but in terms of some userboxes (and some users' use of userboxes) being disruptive to the community and being individually taken to TFD as such.
If I make a user subpage [[User:Pakaran/Why Someuser is a big fat bastard]], then that does not mean that user subpages are bad. It means that I made a bad use of that user subpage, and *I* should be dealt with (and the page should probably be deleted, etc). Morven, none of this is directed at you - just some thoughts I've had in reading the 80+ userbox-related messages I've gotten in the past 20 hours.
Nathan aka Pak
On 1/4/06, Nathan Russell windrunner@gmail.com wrote:
If users are engaging in personal attacks, racism, homophobia, or what have you in userboxes, talk pages, wikipedia_talk pages, or anywhere else on WP, that should be dealt with in terms of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and their sister policies. Not in terms of userboxes being a bad thing, but in terms of some userboxes (and some users' use of userboxes) being disruptive to the community and being individually taken to TFD as such.
Oh I completely agree. The babel boxes, etc, indeed most userboxes, are fine. Some may be used for attacks and must be deleted. Some promote factionalism by providing a handy directory for the pushers of various points of view (I have identified three such cases in the past three weeks) and they must also go. I don't thinkk we need be overly concerned about "powered by alcohol" and other joky stuff.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Oh I completely agree. The babel boxes, etc, indeed most userboxes, are fine. Some may be used for attacks and must be deleted. Some promote factionalism by providing a handy directory for the pushers of various points of view (I have identified three such cases in the past three weeks) and they must also go. I don't thinkk we need be overly concerned about "powered by alcohol" and other joky stuff.
Hestitations, caveats, and all, I would say that Tony and I are mostly in agreement here.
The language boxes are actually incredibly useful and wonderful. Boxes that help me to know my fellow Wikipedians are useful. Boxes which attack people are bad.
Boxes which promote factionalism are bad, but this is in tension with the idea that these same boxes help me to know my fellow Wikipedians. It someone with a "Supporter of the Republican Party" userbox just being friendly and giving me information about themselves, or are they signalling a desire to engage in POV-pushing conflict? It all depends on the user.
As I have said elsewhere in a comment that played a role in setting off the Great Userbox War of 2006, I think we should try not to use userboxes that would suggest that we are ideological in our editing. Here we are wikipedians, out there we may be advocates, but here we just want to share knowledge and help each other get it right. (And those who want to use Wikipedia to advance a particular political or ideological agenda are invited to leave us alone, please.)
Fun little jokey stuff? Ehh... I agree with Tony: "I don't think we need be overly concerned..."
As with everything in Wikipedia, I'm sure the wisdom of the community in the final analysis will be somewhere in the middle ground (with a very long and tedious policy and procedure ha ha).
--Jimbo
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Nathan Russell wrote:
If users are engaging in personal attacks, racism, homophobia, or what have you in userboxes, talk pages, wikipedia_talk pages, or anywhere else on WP, that should be dealt with in terms of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and their sister policies. Not in terms of userboxes being a bad thing, but in terms of some userboxes (and some users' use of userboxes) being disruptive to the community and being individually taken to TFD as such.
If I make a user subpage [[User:Pakaran/Why Someuser is a big fat bastard]], then that does not mean that user subpages are bad. It means that I made a bad use of that user subpage, and *I* should be dealt with (and the page should probably be deleted, etc).
I have to agree with Nathan here. The arguments I've seen for the thesis "Userboxes are bad" include:
* they misuse wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines * they enable zealots with similar POVs to find each other * they cause divisiveness * they are an unnecessary burden on the servers * there are Wikipedians who spend more time on Userboxes than on contributing to the rest of Wikipedia
All of these arguments can be dealt with effectively on a case-by-case basis. No template or userbox should have Fair Use images: Jimbo has spoken & that should be that. People of the same POV have always found each other on Wikipedia, & Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this. If a userbox can be construed as a personal attack (e.g., "This use believes anyone who uses MS Windows is lame"), then it should be shot on sight.
No one has supplied any details on how Userboxes effect the servers. This would be something important to know -- & decisive in this matter; by this, if I mean if Userboxes could be shown to have a measurable effect on the servers, then the developers should disable this feature, end of argument. If they have no measurable effect on the servers, then I find it hard to worry much about them.
As for the matter that some Wikipedians spend more time on Userboxes than contributing content, if this is the case then someone needs to have a talk with the person & explain that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia -- not a web page with lots of cute & colorful Userboxes. If they refuse to get with the program, then perhaps the solution then would be to either treat them like a vandal or haul them before the ArbCom for an official banning. (And if anyone is curious, I can identify one person who falls into this category -- so there are people with accounts on Wikipedia who need to get with the program.)
Honestly, I don't see how putting a couple of userboxes on one's user page transforms the average Wikipedian into some drooling, lamer noob who uses Wikipedia only to hang with his bro's & to pick fights with his unkewl rivals. And for the record, while I have a few of these things on my User page, I find this phenomena silly -- like Sailor Moon anime, teen-aged Republicans, & people who can't understand the difference between "your" & "you're". However, I can cheerfully ignore it & spend my time on more important matters, like compiling material in order to add to Wikipedia an article on every population center in Ethiopia. Indeed, I've spent about an hour writing this email that I could have devoted to this project; I wonder how many more hours have been squandered on this subject.
Well this is my last email on the matter -- if I can help it. If I post to this thread again, I'll have to find some suitable way to do penance for my weakness.
Geoff
On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
- they misuse wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines
- they enable zealots with similar POVs to find each other
- they cause divisiveness
- they are an unnecessary burden on the servers
- there are Wikipedians who spend more time on Userboxes than on
contributing to the rest of Wikipedia
You're missing a key one - the userbox project has become a poisonous pit that explicitly targets those who do not like userboxes, and it is actively fostering a crusade mentality. This is a systemic problem, not one of specific boxes. In short, the project itself needs to go.
-Phil
On 1/5/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
- they misuse wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines
- they enable zealots with similar POVs to find each other
- they cause divisiveness
- they are an unnecessary burden on the servers
- there are Wikipedians who spend more time on Userboxes than on
contributing to the rest of Wikipedia
You're missing a key one - the userbox project has become a poisonous pit that explicitly targets those who do not like userboxes, and it is actively fostering a crusade mentality. This is a systemic problem, not one of specific boxes. In short, the project itself needs to go.
-Phil
They haven't targeted me yet.
-- geni
On 1/4/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The userbox project has become a poisonous pit that explicitly targets those who do not like userboxes, and it is actively fostering a crusade mentality. This is a systemic problem, not one of specific boxes. In short, the project itself needs to go.
While your wording may be a bit harsh, it does convey sentiments of quite a few frustrated Wikipedians.
On 1/7/06, Wikiacc wikiacc@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The userbox project has become a poisonous pit that explicitly targets those who do not like userboxes, and it is actively fostering a crusade mentality. This is a systemic problem, not one of specific boxes. In short, the project itself needs to go.
While your wording may be a bit harsh, it does convey sentiments of quite a few frustrated Wikipedians.
-- --~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For what it's worth, I don't think disbanding the project without creating some kind of guideline for future userboxes would be a good idea. The project has standardized what was before a haphhazard collection of template naming schemes and such. What they did needed to be done, and I think it'd be an insult to all who worked on it to allow it to get back to the way it was.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 1/4/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
- they misuse wikipedia's Fair Use guidelines
- they enable zealots with similar POVs to find each other
- they cause divisiveness
- they are an unnecessary burden on the servers
- there are Wikipedians who spend more time on Userboxes than on
contributing to the rest of Wikipedia
You're missing a key one - the userbox project has become a poisonous pit that explicitly targets those who do not like userboxes, and it is actively fostering a crusade mentality. This is a systemic problem, not one of specific boxes. In short, the project itself needs to go.
Oh please. I think userboxes are silly but this argument might be even sillier. A "crusade mentality" cannot survive without an enemy. If people weren't trying to delete the userboxes then there wouldn't be a crusade. Using the fact of objection to deletion as a reason for deletion is ludicrious.
If people are not being civil, we have WP:CIVIL. Userboxes don't make uncivil comments, users do. And deleting their little boxes without a good reason isn't going to make that any better.
FF
On 1/4/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Nathan Russell wrote: As for the matter that some Wikipedians spend more time on Userboxes than contributing content, if this is the case then someone needs to have a talk with the person & explain that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia -- not a web page with lots of cute & colorful Userboxes. If they refuse to get with the program, then perhaps the solution then would be to either treat them like a vandal or haul them before the ArbCom for an official banning. (And if anyone is curious, I can identify one person who falls into this category -- so there are people with accounts on Wikipedia who need to get with the program.)
If their actions are not detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole, why should they be ArbCommed? This seems like an overreaction to me. There's no reason someone who just makes userboxes should be forced to leave.
Honestly, I don't see how putting a couple of userboxes on one's user
page transforms the average Wikipedian into some drooling, lamer noob who uses Wikipedia only to hang with his bro's & to pick fights with his unkewl rivals. And for the record, while I have a few of these things on my User page, I find this phenomena silly -- like Sailor Moon anime, teen-aged Republicans, & people who can't understand the difference between "your" & "you're". However, I can cheerfully ignore it & spend my time on more important matters, like compiling material in order to add to Wikipedia an article on every population center in Ethiopia.
As another food for thought, does this make any admin with a userbox on their userpage a useless admin? I've seen that argument being bandied about.
--Jay Converse (Mo0)
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 1/5/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Nathan Russell wrote:
. People of the same POV have always found each other on Wikipedia, & Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this.
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two AFD's. The one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
Well this is my last email on the matter -- if I can help it. If I post to this thread again, I'll have to find some suitable way to do penance for my weakness.
In case you have to do penance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified :)
Garion
Geoff
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 Garion1000
On 1/5/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
. People of the same POV have always found each other on
Wikipedia, &
Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this.
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two AFD's. The one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
So what are you saying? It should be *hard* for Wikipedians to find others with similar interests?
This whole argument seems to resemble others I've heard. It's like one put up by firearm enthusiasts when attacked with the argument that firearms should be banned because many are used to commit crimes. They retaliate by saying that cars should be banned because so many are used to commit crimes. People actually die in traffic accidents, they say. Cars are killers, they say.
Userboxes aren't Wikipedia-killers. Maybe they are being abused. Maybe. But if so, isn't the *real* problem the abusers, not the tools they use?
A few days ago, I raised the notion of Google or Microsoft creating their own online user-edited encyclopaedia if we tried to get them to pay for Wikipedia's expenses. Two or three people said that sure, they could do this, but they wouldn't get the Wikipedia community.
The community aspect of Wikipedia is vitally important. In fact it's one of the marvels of the Internet, to see such a grand project being constructed as a co-operative effort. To my mind, anything that increases community bonds without detracting from the main objective is something that should be encouraged. If there is a problem with userboxes, then it should be discussed and managed, rather than adopt the simplistic "ban everything" approach.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
On 1/5/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
. People of the same POV have always found each other on
Wikipedia, &
Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this.
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two AFD's. The one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
So what are you saying? It should be *hard* for Wikipedians to find others with similar interests?
Well it shouldn't be so absurdly easy that it fosters campaigning. This is an encyclopedia, not a dating service.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2006 21:25 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox fads
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
On 1/5/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
. People of the same POV have always found each other on
Wikipedia, &
Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this.
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two
AFD's. The
one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
So what are you saying? It should be *hard* for Wikipedians to find others with similar interests?
Well it shouldn't be so absurdly easy that it fosters campaigning.
Campaigning for what, precisely?
This is an encyclopedia, not a dating service.
It seems to me that Wikipedia is very good as an encyclopaedia compared with everything else on the web, and very poor as a dating service, blog site, chess-playing site etc when compared to other sites. Do people really come here for these secondary reasons when there are other, better places available?
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
This is an encyclopedia, not a dating service.
It seems to me that Wikipedia is very good as an encyclopaedia compared with everything else on the web, and very poor as a dating service, blog site, chess-playing site etc when compared to other sites. Do people really come here for these secondary reasons when there are other, better places available?
One pretty good way to find out would be to take away the user categories and see how many people leave. If they mostly stay, we've gotten rid of things that facilitate the abuse of Wikipedia. If they mostly leave, we've unshipped people who were here for the wrong reasons. Either way is a win.
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well it shouldn't be so absurdly easy that it fosters campaigning. This is an encyclopedia, not a dating service.
I think it's inevitable that given the high profile Wikipedia is increasingly having, more people are getting involved - and a smaller proportion of them are highly interested in developing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is in one of the "top sites" spots now, like it or not.
It's interesting to consider that perhaps one of the reasons WHY Wikipedia has been successful is that it doesn't encourage and facilitate too much inter-user interaction outside of working on articles. It's possibly a good thing that we don't have inter-user mail, a chat system, or a bulletin board built in to the site.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
I think it's inevitable that given the high profile Wikipedia is increasingly having, more people are getting involved - and a smaller proportion of them are highly interested in developing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is in one of the "top sites" spots now, like it or not.
We *do* encourage people to create accounts, telling them that it "takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits". Also, even read-only people still need the account to be able to set preferences.
If we really don't want non-editors creating accounts and user pages, we could start by not soliciting them to do so.
Stan
Matt Brown wrote:
I think it's inevitable that given the high profile Wikipedia is increasingly having, more people are getting involved - and a smaller proportion of them are highly interested in developing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is in one of the "top sites" spots now, like it or not.
Slightly OT, but I've seen a lot of confusion between the terms "wiki" and "Wikipedia" due to our high profile; people will call a wiki a "Wikipedia", people will call Wikipedia "wiki" and people will call articles "wikis", too.
There's also the added confusion of what is "the Wiki" - is it Wikipedia, the Portland Pattern Repository (IIRC the "original" wiki), or Meatball?
While I like what Jimbo said, and what he agreed w Tony Sidaway regarding, I should hope he doesn't agree w tony on the following:
One pretty good way to find out would be to take away the user categories and see how many people leave. If they mostly stay, we've gotten rid of things that facilitate the abuse of Wikipedia. If they mostly leave, we've unshipped people who were here for the wrong reasons. Either way is a win.
This is not only completely illogical, it underscores how out of touch admins can get. Intentionally taking away a source of joy from large numbers of users in a bid to see if they'll leave, or if they'll just accept your hegemony over them... thats pretty much the opposite of my recipe for success in a volunteer setting.
Sam Spade
On 1/7/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
While I like what Jimbo said, and what he agreed w Tony Sidaway regarding, I should hope he doesn't agree w tony on the following:
One pretty good way to find out would be to take away the user categories and see how many people leave. If they mostly stay, we've gotten rid of things that facilitate the abuse of Wikipedia. If they mostly leave, we've unshipped people who were here for the wrong reasons. Either way is a win.
This is not only completely illogical, it underscores how out of touch admins can get. Intentionally taking away a source of joy from large numbers of users in a bid to see if they'll leave, or if they'll just accept your hegemony over them... thats pretty much the opposite of my recipe for success in a volunteer setting.
Sam Spade
And in case it begs the question, my recipe for success in a volunteer setting involves lots of affirmation, community building, and rewards (however small). As a psychology student w who places a great deal of emphasis on behaviour modification, I see a morbid unbalance of rewards to punishments on this project. Too much ARBCOM, not enough "editor of the week". In sum, DO NOT arbitrarily take away that which makes people happy. Don't be reactionary, be adaptive. Less complaints, blocks and deletions, more praise, mentorship and barnstars.
Sam Spade
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Spade
And in case it begs the question, my recipe for success in a volunteer setting involves lots of affirmation, community building, and rewards (however small). As a psychology student w who places a great deal of emphasis on behaviour modification, I see a morbid unbalance of rewards to punishments on this project. Too much ARBCOM, not enough "editor of the week". In sum, DO NOT arbitrarily take away that which makes people happy. Don't be reactionary, be adaptive. Less complaints, blocks and deletions, more praise, mentorship and barnstars.
Hear hear! I get the feeling that some would turn WP into a police state, sending off undesirables to Gulag 13, and enforcing arbitrary rules down to the last full stop and naming convention. I've seen new editors abused most shamefully for getting things like capitalisation in headings wrong.
And then these people wonder why there's grumbling in the ranks.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/7/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
[On taking away userboxes to see what happens]
This is not only completely illogical, it underscores how out of touch admins can get. Intentionally taking away a source of joy from large numbers of users in a bid to see if they'll leave, or if they'll just accept your hegemony over them... thats pretty much the opposite of my recipe for success in a volunteer setting.
Well, you should understand that I'm only talking here about userboxes that are potentially harmful to the project. Boxes that are used to attack people or groups (anti-Jewish and anti-Scientologist boxes have appeared, and of course anything
There's also a problem where newer users see this as a freedom of expression issue and wrongly believe that they have some kind of US-constitution style protection over what they say on their user pages.
I don't think it's overdramatizing to say that these people are in general treating Wikipedia as some kind of hosting or social site. If that is what they're here for, they're not volunteers but freeloaders.
One way to find out is to take away their freebies and see how many leave. Another would be to look at the people who have voted in the userbox controversy and see if significant numbers are in fact contributing anything to the encyclopedia. Many of them aren't, but we don't have any quantification there. If dealing with the issues arising from userboxes strains our administration, we should let these people go.
We agree about harmful or threatening talk page content, altho where do we draw the line? I find communism and satanism threatening myself...
As per the clueless newbies, we completely disagree. My opinion is that chasing them off instead of mentoring them damages the project in a way immeasurably greater than user boxes, no matter how stupid they are.
Sadly, too many people forget what admins are for. Admins are here to help users, and maintain the project. We should never think things like :
"these clueless newbies and their dumb ideas are a real bother to us admins. Lets delete their user boxes and give them a serious scolding! Then maybe they'll go away and us admins won't have so much work to do"
Because that is how you kill a volunteer project. Wikipedia is not a social club for admins and old hands, its a growing internet phenomena designed to offer access to the sum total of human knowledge to everyone. To do that, we need more help, not less.
Sam Spade
On 1/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/7/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
[On taking away userboxes to see what happens]
This is not only completely illogical, it underscores how out of touch admins can get. Intentionally taking away a source of joy from large numbers of users in a bid to see if they'll leave, or if they'll just accept your hegemony over them... thats pretty much the opposite of my recipe for success in a volunteer setting.
Well, you should understand that I'm only talking here about userboxes that are potentially harmful to the project. Boxes that are used to attack people or groups (anti-Jewish and anti-Scientologist boxes have appeared, and of course anything
There's also a problem where newer users see this as a freedom of expression issue and wrongly believe that they have some kind of US-constitution style protection over what they say on their user pages.
I don't think it's overdramatizing to say that these people are in general treating Wikipedia as some kind of hosting or social site. If that is what they're here for, they're not volunteers but freeloaders.
One way to find out is to take away their freebies and see how many leave. Another would be to look at the people who have voted in the userbox controversy and see if significant numbers are in fact contributing anything to the encyclopedia. Many of them aren't, but we don't have any quantification there. If dealing with the issues arising from userboxes strains our administration, we should let these people go. _______________________________________________ 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, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
We agree about harmful or threatening talk page content, altho where do we draw the line? I find communism and satanism threatening myself...
It's not the espousal of views that is problematic. Saying you're a communist or a satanist on your user page is fine with me (even a proponent of global warfare in the interests of one's country, there are plenty of them around). It's the factionalization, achieved by the use of cateogories and possibly (though I'm not entirely convinced on this) through the "whatlinkshere" mechanism, that is the problem in my view.
We should never think things like :
"these clueless newbies and their dumb ideas are a real bother to us admins. Lets delete their user boxes and give them a serious scolding! Then maybe they'll go away and us admins won't have so much work to do"
I can see your concerns, but I'm not really convinced here. I see it as possibly quite a large number new people who have no interest in the project and would probably be happier elsewhere. While the evidence here is at present somewhat anecdotal, and we should proceed with caution, I want to do more investigation on this to see just how much inclination these new users have shown to get down to working on the encyclopedia rather than their user pages.
Here's my solution to the userbox problem.
Any "userbox" (aka. babel-like template) which does not
- Inform the reader about the languages (human) that one can understand and edit in
- Inform the reader about the languages (computer) that one is proficient in to some degree and can use those skills constructively towards editing
- Inform the reader about what browser/operating system they use so that they can be consulted wrt. technical issues with the wiki
- Inform the reader about what musical instruments they play so that Free music can be recorded for articles
- Inform the reader about what WikiProjects they are part of so that other editors can consult them about articles related to that wikiproject
should be deleted. WikiProject Userboxes should ensure that userboxes remain as things which are useful to other editors, in the task of building an encyclopedia. Such silly things as "This user is a dickbrain with no respect for consensus, policy, copyright issues, or the task of writing an encyclopedia" should be deleted, and the user banned for wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Here's my solution to the userbox problem.
Any "userbox" (aka. babel-like template) which does not
- Inform the reader about the languages (human) that one can understand
and edit in
- Inform the reader about the languages (computer) that one is
proficient in to some degree and can use those skills constructively towards editing
- Inform the reader about what browser/operating system they use so that
they can be consulted wrt. technical issues with the wiki
- Inform the reader about what musical instruments they play so that
Free music can be recorded for articles
- Inform the reader about what WikiProjects they are part of so that
other editors can consult them about articles related to that wikiproject
should be deleted. WikiProject Userboxes should ensure that userboxes remain as things which are useful to other editors, in the task of building an encyclopedia. Such silly things as "This user is a dickbrain with no respect for consensus, policy, copyright issues, or the task of writing an encyclopedia" should be deleted, and the user banned for wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.
What about "blank cheque" templates where a basic userbox structure is provided and users just insert their preferred text/images? I think that these might be okay, if subst'ed.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 1/8/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
What about "blank cheque" templates where a basic userbox structure is provided and users just insert their preferred text/images? I think that these might be okay, if subst'ed.
Yep, and just the one {{userbox}} will do. It can always be substituted. No other set of templates is needed, bar the ones Alphax outlined. Other categories to go with the boxes are also (obviously) unneeded.
As stated before (many times) fair use images aren't permissable on userpages.
I doubt the userbox fanatics will allow this sensible compromise to pass, however. They're only having fun, after all. They aren't damaging the servers, after all. They aren't being offensive, after all. We should all "lighten up", after all.
-- Sam
That's not a solution, that's just a codification of the assertion that userboxes, aside from everything else on a user page, needs to be "practical". If you are going to apply these to userboxes, why not apply them to images in userpages? Why not apply them to all text?
I still haven't seen why recreational userbox use is something so "special" it needs separate guidelines for it. I agree they are ugly, and that in some instances people use them to find other like-minded people to vote on things. However I have yet to see a sound citation of policy which indicates that either of these are unequivocally against the rules in all circumstances.
This whole affair looks like a pet peeve which has gotten ridiculously out of hand, to the detriment of all involved.
FF
On 1/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Here's my solution to the userbox problem.
Any "userbox" (aka. babel-like template) which does not
- Inform the reader about the languages (human) that one can understand
and edit in
- Inform the reader about the languages (computer) that one is
proficient in to some degree and can use those skills constructively towards editing
- Inform the reader about what browser/operating system they use so that
they can be consulted wrt. technical issues with the wiki
- Inform the reader about what musical instruments they play so that
Free music can be recorded for articles
- Inform the reader about what WikiProjects they are part of so that
other editors can consult them about articles related to that wikiproject
should be deleted. WikiProject Userboxes should ensure that userboxes remain as things which are useful to other editors, in the task of building an encyclopedia. Such silly things as "This user is a dickbrain with no respect for consensus, policy, copyright issues, or the task of writing an encyclopedia" should be deleted, and the user banned for wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
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
That's not a solution, that's just a codification of the assertion that userboxes, aside from everything else on a user page, needs to be "practical". If you are going to apply these to userboxes, why not apply them to images in userpages? Why not apply them to all text?
I think, in the spirit of setting a good example, any admin proponent of this "solution" should first remove all frivolous and unneccessary material from their own user space and adopt such a puritan, holier-than-thou attitude that other editors begin to actively detest them, not invite them to parties etc.
Pete, hereby applying for the silver badge and black cloak of the Joke Police
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
On 1/8/06, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
We agree about harmful or threatening talk page content,
altho where
do we draw the line? I find communism and satanism threatening myself...
It's not the espousal of views that is problematic. Saying you're a communist or a satanist on your user page is fine with me (even a proponent of global warfare in the interests of one's country, there are plenty of them around). It's the factionalization, achieved by the use of cateogories and possibly (though I'm not entirely convinced on this) through the "whatlinkshere" mechanism, that is the problem in my view.
Are the existing factions on WP also a problem for you?
Pete, just chasing down the loose ends
On 1/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Are the existing factions on WP also a problem for you?
Yes, in the sense that they're a problem for Wikipedia.
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
On 1/5/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
. People of the same POV have always found each other on
Wikipedia, &
Userboxes are hardly a powerful new tool to accomplish this.
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two AFD's. The one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
So what are you saying? It should be *hard* for Wikipedians to find others with similar interests?
No, but to find others with a simular POV is different. A userbox stating one person is an expert or has much knowledge on gay rights I don't mind. (Whether that user is pro or against them). A userbox stating that person is against gay rights is different. The same counts for userboxes for "I am a republican" vs "I am a republican party expert", creationism/evolution vs ...., I hate Bush etc etc.
The community aspect of Wikipedia is vitally important. In fact it's one of the marvels of the Internet, to see such a grand project being constructed as a co-operative effort. To my mind, anything that increases community bonds without detracting from the main objective is something that should be encouraged.
Maybe it's because I don't see it as creating a community bond but more like creating POV groups withing the community. At least userboxes make that much easier. Therein lies the danger. IMO of course.
Garion
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000 Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2006 21:25 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox fads
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
But userboxes makes it a lot easier to do so. Look it two
AFD's. The
one for some catholic encyclopedians and the gay rights in iraq article.
So what are you saying? It should be *hard* for Wikipedians to find others with similar interests?
No, but to find others with a simular POV is different. A userbox stating one person is an expert or has much knowledge on gay rights I don't mind. (Whether that user is pro or against them). A userbox stating that person is against gay rights is different. The same counts for userboxes for "I am a republican" vs "I am a republican party expert", creationism/evolution vs ...., I hate Bush etc etc.
I appreciate the distinction, but this just moves my question up a notch. Should it be hard for Wikipedians to find others of similar opinions?
Nobody expects us to be NPOV as private individuals. So long as the articles are NPOV, that's the big thing.
And there are POV groups within Wikipedia already. Homosexual folk seem to stick together and back each other up here. Presumably they all hold similar positive opinions on homosexuality, but I cannot say that I have seen any evidence that the articles they work on are POV as a result.
If there is any evidence that Wikipedia is suffering as a result of userboxes, then I'd be keen to see it. But so far it all seems to be a matter of potential rather than actuality, and may I suggest that if the fear is that people are going to misuse AfD to skew consensus, then the problem may very well be with the AfD process rather than with userboxes.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/4/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Nathan Russell wrote:
Honestly, I don't see how putting a couple of userboxes on one's user page transforms the average Wikipedian into some drooling, lamer noob who uses Wikipedia only to hang with his bro's & to pick fights with his unkewl rivals.
While not commenting on the thesis here, I simply note again that the page I looked at yesterday had *86* user boxes on it. Eighty-six.
Jay.
jayjg wrote:
While not commenting on the thesis here, I simply note again that the page I looked at yesterday had *86* user boxes on it. Eighty-six.
I'm assuming this is to me. :)
Do you have any solutions? Also, I'd like to have a private chat with you about it. Do you use IRC? My nick is 'Talrias'.
Chris