Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
On 1/6/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia zzyzx11@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
It's just me, but I don't see why not. A userbox is a template is a template is a template... and so on and so forth. I don't see why just because it's currently a hot button issue that we should prevent what already is a valid reason for deletion from being used.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 1/6/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
It's just me, but I don't see why not. A userbox is a template is a template is a template... and so on and so forth. I don't see why just because it's currently a hot button issue that we should prevent what already is a valid reason for deletion from being used.
I do suspect in the current climate that will just make a dozen people start to use it, to protect it.
-Matt
charles matthews wrote:
"Matt Brown" wrote
I do suspect in the current climate that will just make a dozen people
start to use it, to protect it.
Something to that. Attention-seeking behaviour is sometimes best treated by ignoring it, as parents know.
Wisdom.
Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.
I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
--Jimbo
On 2/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
...some of whom, we hope, will stick around and become Wikipedians.
Steve
Jimmy Wales wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
"Matt Brown" wrote
I do suspect in the current climate that will just make a dozen people
start to use it, to protect it.
Something to that. Attention-seeking behaviour is sometimes best treated by ignoring it, as parents know.
Wisdom.
Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.
I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.
Regrettably, this kind of philosophical self-examination is not very popular. My experience has been that the more thought is put into an idea, the more readily it will be ignored. Still as much as I may be justified in complaining that people don't pay attention to what I say, I must confess that some of the most interesting (if somewhat prolix) comments put me into such a paralysis of meditation that I fail to respond with the careful attention that these comments deserve.
These user boxes seem to be the Wiki's answer to the 10-second soundbite. Compact as much as possible into a tiny box to achieve a particular effect. If need be sacrifice accuracy for the sake of brevity. That kind of thinking would have gourmet cuisine epitomized by McDonald's.
I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I find the Cheney shooting incident instructive. It says more about the way that such events are processed than about any culpability that may be attached to those directly involved. What difference did it make if the reporting was not through accepted channels? There was no matter of public policy involved, or any consequences that would plausibly affect anyone other than those directly involved. Whatever fault I may find with the current US administration let it at least be over real issues, and not over the microscopic examination of a single personal event. Many more meaningful incidents are discussed far less by the press than this single accidental shooting.
The userboxes, and the media treatment of the shooting both reflect an amazingly similar problem. The instantaneification of information is incompatible with its enormousness. We want knowledge in quantities that we can understand. We keep hoping that just around the corner we will find that magical piece of software that will make it all as clear as 42. Our addiction to virtual reality makes it difficult to distinguish whether the person who has moved into the house next door is Homer Simpson or Pikachu. Perhaps being a Wikipedian is seeking to build the tools that will help us to cope with that reality.
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
Participating in the debate is somewhat acceptable in guiding people to their own decision. If people can be willingly guided into a consensus it is always preferable to the application of "force majeure".
Reference: Paul Virilio, "The Information Bomb"
Ec
On 2/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.
"Our Loving Little Community" has been a thing of the past probably at least as long as I've been an admin. We have 800 admins. Certainly not little and to be honest there are many on there I don't know at all.
I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.
When and where did you make that request?
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
Nothing is that simple. People who belive " you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun" have always existed. Some learn some give up and some have to be removed. They have always existed they always will exist. Not really a problem. At least not a new one.
Trying to profile the sides is pointless since the pure userbax contiversy cuts across pretty much all the traditional conflict lines.
There is a conflict going on between the older generation and newer generation on wikipedia but that always happens. The latest generation is influenced by a different eniviroment to the older ones. They respond by behaveing slightly differently to the older generations. This always happens this always will happens. There is some friction sure but you just have to live with that for the most part it will sort itself out.
You notice the conflict this time because more than in the past it effects your role within wikipedia. Simply put when it comes to day to day running you don't have one any more. The current generation doesn't know you. They have no reason to. Thus there is not going to be as much automatic deference.
-- geni
Jimmy Wales wrote:
As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.
I mentioned this a while back, and didn't get much response at the time, but we do encourage people to create accounts ("Registering a free account takes only a few seconds, and has many benefits.") irrespective of whether they intend to contribute usefully or not.
We're not like a provincial university where the local legislature has decreed that that everyone has to be accepted in regardless of ability. Given that we now have a surfeit of volunteers, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to gently raise the bar, rewarding the good editors while inducing the poor ones to find another wiki more in line with their talents.
Stan
On 2/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We're not like a provincial university where the local legislature has decreed that that everyone has to be accepted in regardless of ability. Given that we now have a surfeit of volunteers, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to gently raise the bar, rewarding the good editors while inducing the poor ones to find another wiki more in line with their talents.
We have a surfeit of volunteers? Maybe badly utilised volunteers, but I see evidence of a lot of work to be done and not enough people to do it.
Gripe for today: people who make one-word edits to badly written articles. How do we get people to be very bold on budding articles, without using "be bold" as an excuse to rewrite established articles from scratch without consultation?
Steve
It's not because they're not bold, but deciding on culling and eventually rewriting is time-consuming and not something everyone has time for. At least with one word edits, the article shows up in recent changes.
Mgm
On 2/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We're not like a provincial university where the local legislature has decreed that that everyone has to be accepted in regardless of ability. Given that we now have a surfeit of volunteers, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to gently raise the bar, rewarding the good editors while inducing the poor ones to find another wiki more in line with their talents.
We have a surfeit of volunteers? Maybe badly utilised volunteers, but I see evidence of a lot of work to be done and not enough people to do it.
Gripe for today: people who make one-word edits to badly written articles. How do we get people to be very bold on budding articles, without using "be bold" as an excuse to rewrite established articles from scratch without consultation?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/19/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
We're not like a provincial university where the local legislature has decreed that that everyone has to be accepted in regardless of ability. Given that we now have a surfeit of volunteers, perhaps we should be thinking about ways to gently raise the bar, rewarding the good editors while inducing the poor ones to find another wiki more in line with their talents.
We have a surfeit of volunteers? Maybe badly utilised volunteers, but I see evidence of a lot of work to be done and not enough people to do it.
If you look at RC, new articles, etc, you'll see thousands of editors working away. A great many of them are just rambling on about their boring high schools and deservedly-obscure garage bands (or adding userboxes), and there are quite a few who never go on to do anything more substantive. So we have plenty of participants, just not enough of the kind that add much value to the project.
To some extent it's unavoidable - there will always be more high school students than experts in quantum mechanics - but it's not clear to me that large numbers of the very average is an adequate substitute for smaller numbers of the scholarly-minded. To abuse an analogy, the bazaar only works when people actually bring goods and money.
Stan
On 2/20/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
If you look at RC, new articles, etc, you'll see thousands of editors working away. A great many of them are just rambling on about their boring high schools and deservedly-obscure garage bands (or adding userboxes), and there are quite a few who never go on to do anything more substantive. So we have plenty of participants, just not enough of the kind that add much value to the project.
To some extent it's unavoidable - there will always be more high school students than experts in quantum mechanics - but it's not clear to me that large numbers of the very average is an adequate substitute for smaller numbers of the scholarly-minded. To abuse an analogy, the bazaar only works when people actually bring goods and money.
Ok, so there are two possible scenarios: Wheat and chaff: 1 in every X contributors is a useful contributor. If we want more useful contributors, we need more contributors overall, and put up with the chaff, and develop strategies so it doesn't get too annoying (with respect to any chaff reading this list :)) Amateurs and professionals: If you host a karaoke night, Pavarotti doesn't show up. Useful contributors and pokemon fans are two fundamentally different beasts (with respect to Pokemon fans). Attracting more amateurs won't bring in more pros, and may even drive them away.
Who wants to offer their opinion on which model is more accurate?
Steve
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so there are two possible scenarios: Wheat and chaff: 1 in every X contributors is a useful contributor. If we want more useful contributors, we need more contributors overall, and put up with the chaff, and develop strategies so it doesn't get too annoying (with respect to any chaff reading this list :)) Amateurs and professionals: If you host a karaoke night, Pavarotti doesn't show up. Useful contributors and pokemon fans are two fundamentally different beasts (with respect to Pokemon fans). Attracting more amateurs won't bring in more pros, and may even drive them away.
Who wants to offer their opinion on which model is more accurate?
It could be that both models fit to an extent. Maybe it's a trade-off: the many and various trolls/vandals/flame warriors/cruft/POV-pushers undoubtedly keep some better contributors away, but, by the same token, our openness and egalitarianism attract valuable editors amongst the "chaff" that we just wouldn't have otherwise.
Larry Sanger thinks that we and the expert-led Digital Universe encyclopedia project will occupy "socially complementary niches" (http://tinyurl.com/kok5r ).
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:46:30 -0800, you wrote:
If you look at RC, new articles, etc, you'll see thousands of editors working away. A great many of them are just rambling on about their boring high schools and deservedly-obscure garage bands (or adding userboxes), and there are quite a few who never go on to do anything more substantive. So we have plenty of participants, just not enough of the kind that add much value to the project.
I think there is a need to engage more with the newbies, to be more creative in how we welcome them, for example pointing those who are writing about their high school club to the Schools project where they will find an unending source of to-do waiting for them. Of course, since many of them are motivated primarily by a desire to document their high school club this may not be productive. But it might be.
Userfying instead of speedying (except for blatant copyvios, and I don't include copy & paste from their own website here) is also more welcoming.
The downside of that is that I now spend a lot of my time on the project doing those things and not writing articles myself. I'm not an especially good editor, so it's no loss, but it does feel good sometimes to just shut the door on that crap and do something else. I might start using my old account for main-space edits... Guy (JzG)
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I think there is a need to engage more with the newbies, to be more creative in how we welcome them, for example pointing those who are writing about their high school club to the Schools project where they will find an unending source of to-do waiting for them. Of course, since many of them are motivated primarily by a desire to document their high school club this may not be productive. But it might be.
My first contribution to Wikipedia was a university club (not sure it's notable, but it's so far evaded deletion), and an article on the local pub where this club frequently met (eventually AfD'ed for "nonsense" and non-notability). I like to think I"ve become a useful wikipedian since then.
So yeah, anyone who wants to write about their high school club stands at least some chance of being made useful.
Steve
I would say so, excepting ones that are part of a series, e.g. en-1,en-2,en-3,en-4 as someone wanting to join the new level may not be able to make the template easily.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia" zzyzx11@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes
Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia zzyzx11@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
Check out [[WP:TFD]] right now. Currently, there is a whole bunch of userbox warriors that are going to stall and keep any userbox that comes their way. In short, the box is going to get kept anyways. An example of this is {{User fair use}}, which Jimbo himself deleted before being informed of the TfD debate, which is really irrelevant, considering that we can't disobey the US copyright law that Wikipedia is legally obligated to fllow.
Looks to me that the userbox editors are disrupting the flow and work of Wikipedia, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Those who have five times as many userbox edits as mainspace edits can't be helping Wikipedia all that much.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 1/7/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/6/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia zzyzx11@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
Check out [[WP:TFD]] right now. Currently, there is a whole bunch of userbox warriors that are going to stall and keep any userbox that comes their way. In short, the box is going to get kept anyways. An example of this is {{User fair use}}, which Jimbo himself deleted before being informed of the TfD debate, which is really irrelevant, considering that we can't disobey the US copyright law that Wikipedia is legally obligated to fllow.
Looks to me that the userbox editors are disrupting the flow and work of Wikipedia, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Those who have five times as many userbox edits as mainspace edits can't be helping Wikipedia all that much.
I hope the admin who decides closes the {{User fair use}} debate evaluates the quality of the arguments made in relation to the encyclopedia's mission; it'll be deleted then.
SCZenz
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ben Emmel
Check out [[WP:TFD]] right now. Currently, there is a whole bunch of userbox warriors that are going to stall and keep any userbox that comes their way. In short, the box is going to get kept anyways. An example of this is {{User fair use}}, which Jimbo himself deleted before being informed of the TfD debate, which is really irrelevant, considering that we can't disobey the US copyright law that Wikipedia is legally obligated to fllow.
Yeah, well that's one that's gotta go.
Looks to me that the userbox editors are disrupting the flow and work of Wikipedia, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Those who have five times as many userbox edits as mainspace edits can't be helping Wikipedia all that much.
Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more work in articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in articlespace, it doesn't really matter if they are having a party in userspace the rest of the time. What's the aim of the game: to build an encyclopaedia or to kick newbies?
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more work in articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in articlespace, it doesn't really matter if they are having a party in userspace the rest of the time. What's the aim of the game: to build an encyclopaedia or to kick newbies?
Actually, their insensitive use of templates and categories puts unnecessary load on the servers. That is harmful to Wikipedia.
-- Sam
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2006 09:04 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unused userboxes
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps if they weren't being stirred up, they might be doing more work in articlespace, hmmmm? And if they are doing *some* work in articlespace, it doesn't really matter if they are having a
party in
userspace the rest of the time. What's the aim of the game:
to build
an encyclopaedia or to kick newbies?
Actually, their insensitive use of templates and categories puts unnecessary load on the servers. That is harmful to Wikipedia.
Fine. Let's go through all admin user pages, strip out the templates and argue from the moral high ground.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Fine. Let's go through all admin user pages, strip out the templates and argue from the moral high ground.
All non-useful ones are removed from mine. I urge all other admins to do the same.
-- Sam
On 1/7/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Fine. Let's go through all admin user pages, strip out the templates and argue from the moral high ground.
All non-useful ones are removed from mine. I urge all other admins to do the same.
Damn good idea!
I'll point out, though, that some of the most prolific users of userboxes are admins.
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/7/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Damn good idea!
I'll point out, though, that some of the most prolific users of userboxes are admins.
More's the pity.
Just to note, I have nothing against sensitive use of userboxes (i.e. "humourous" userboxes should not be transcluded or categorised). The Babel templates are in fact a very useful innovation that I entirely support.
-- Sam
A lot of them are being subst: into pages. So you won't be able to see they're being used from the what links here of the template itself.
Mgm
On 1/7/06, Zzyzx11 at Wikipedia zzyzx11@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's something that crossed my mind:
As the number of userboxes continues to increase, I am starting to see a number of them that are currently NOT being used by ANYONE. So in a couple weeks from now, if these same userboxes are still not being used on any userpage, shouldn't they be put on TFD like any other unused, orphaned template? Why or why not?
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11 zzyzx11@hotmail.com
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l