On 1/6/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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: 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 -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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. 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

Jimmy Wales wrote: 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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/20/06, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.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? Steve

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:46:30 -0800, you 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. 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 1/7/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote: Actually, their insensitive use of templates and categories puts unnecessary load on the servers. That is harmful to Wikipedia. -- Sam

On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote: All non-useful ones are removed from mine. I urge all other admins to do the same. -- Sam

On 1/7/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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