== Statistics are in: 123.6% of all threads are about deletionism ==
All other thread topics have apparently been subsumed. Wikipedia and the mailing list are soon to be renamed the "deletionist discussion forum".
</sarcasm off>
----
== Wikipedia goals - accuracy or inclusiveness ==
No, we do not all agree. I want both accuracy and inclusiveness , and I am dissatisfied with what I perceive as inclusiveness being considered unimportant, almost dispensable.
Earlier): "...I think we all agree on the end/goal/aim "Wikipedia as
accurate / correct / vandalism-free as possible" [choose what you like best from these terms] ... "
No, we do not all agree. While I appreciate calls for accuracy, I prefer calls for inclusionism and no censorship. I'm not asking you to change your mind or back down. I'm only trying have my alternative opinion included. I'm just trying to maintain an alternative voice in the fray. Whether you call it "loyal opposition" or "minority view" or whatever, I want it clear that there are those of us in Wikipedia who disagree with the rampant deletionism .
I appreciate some of us want an accurate encyclopedia. Me too. But not just also, but more important to me, I want an inclusive, integrated user community. You too? Do you want an inclusive, integrated user community ? In what way do you see accomplishing that goal?
I disagree with those who think anyone who is not a spammer or vandal or off-topic contributor may be expendable at the whim of an impatient admin. I believe that the goals of the encyclopedia can NOT be achieved at the expense of inclusivity. We've already got exclusive encyclopedias:
Britanica http://www.britannica.com/ Creationwiki http://www.creationwiki.org/ Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/ ... even: Citizendium http://en.citizendium.org/ (Support the Citizendium! Funding drive goal: $10,000 - $620 raised so far) ... and so on.
Earlier: there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect
work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... iff=169628093&oldid=169618698 (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to [do?] material harm to anyone..."
So, we agree about dispensing with spam and vandalism and off topic contributions. Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can agree to leave such irrelevant straw-men out of conversations about ... biting newbies.
----
On Nov 6, 2007 2:59 PM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect
work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... iff=169628093&oldid=169618698 (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to [do?] material harm to anyone..."
So, we agree about dispensing with spam and vandalism and off topic contributions. Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can agree to leave such irrelevant straw-men out of conversations about ... biting newbies.
That would be much easier if people would stop armwaving and SHOW SOME EXAMPLES.
Come on. If this newbie biting is so rampant, just provide some examples... and then we can talk about those.
I'm not claiming that it's not happening, but boilerplate messages have been implicated I've been looking at their use... and the only thing I've been able to find in a couple of minutes of looking is that we're spending too much time asking obviously malicious people to be nice.
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
That would be much easier if people would stop armwaving and SHOW SOME EXAMPLES.
Come on. If this newbie biting is so rampant, just provide some examples... and then we can talk about those.
I'm not claiming that it's not happening, but boilerplate messages have been implicated I've been looking at their use... and the only thing I've been able to find in a couple of minutes of looking is that we're spending too much time asking obviously malicious people to be nice.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bosox38schilling&old...
The text in question was clearly not notable and not npov. However, it clearly wasn't vandalism. Complete text follows: he is a kid who was born June 22nd 1993 who is really awesome!
He plays soccer and basketball.
He is around 5 ft 3 and really cool!
You would definately want to meet him.
He has a sister and a brother.
Now, I have trouble seeing how a vandalism template in that case was anything but biting.
On Nov 6, 2007 3:23 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bosox38schilling&old...
[snip]
Now, I have trouble seeing how a vandalism template in that case was anything but biting.
I'm sure the person who place the message would be insulted by saying it was biting. How about... the person just used the wrong template?
What if they had used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Firstarticle instead?
Is this a case which we could improve by encouraging people to be careful to use on-target messages?
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Nov 6, 2007 3:23 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bosox38schilling&old...
[snip]
Now, I have trouble seeing how a vandalism template in that case was anything but biting.
I'm sure the person who place the message would be insulted by saying it was biting. How about... the person just used the wrong template?
What if they had used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Firstarticle instead?
Is this a case which we could improve by encouraging people to be careful to use on-target messages?
I just talked to the person and it was a mistake and they then immediately put under it a more appropriate template. But they never apologized or clarified the first one. Whether a template is put deliberately or by mistake it will have the same effect on the new user.
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 2:59 PM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect
work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... iff=169628093&oldid=169618698 (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to [do?] material harm to anyone..."
So, we agree about dispensing with spam and vandalism and off topic contributions. Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can agree to leave such irrelevant straw-men out of conversations about ... biting newbies.
That would be much easier if people would stop armwaving and SHOW SOME EXAMPLES.
Come on. If this newbie biting is so rampant, just provide some examples... and then we can talk about those.
From the 50 most recent edits to the User talk namespace, and not
counting {{test}}-style warnings for newbie tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kyle_m4&curid=141103... - A user indef-blocked after his sixth edit, for test-style vandalism to George W Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoggboss&curid=14004... - A new user given a spam4 warning for what looks like a good-faith but misguided attempt to insert a YouTube video into [[Chuck Norris]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevelihn&curid=1313... - A user given a spam1 template for inserting reasonably relevant external links into three articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.13.64.246&oldid=1... - A user given a templated warning for a series of what look like good-faith edits to [[List of channels on Virgin Television]].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.144.180.227&oldid... - A ClueBot vandalism warning for a newbie test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.171.252.29&diff=... -A ClueBot vandalism warning for a newbie test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.213.63.137&oldid=... - A ClueBot vandalism warning for a newbie test.
And this does not include the formatting of the templates that ClueBot hands out. The mix of bold, non-bold, blue, and bold blue text on those templates makes them unreadable, and I consider that newbie-biting all by itself.
On 11/6/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevelihn&curid=1313...
- A user given a spam1 template for inserting reasonably relevant
external links into three articles.
I wouldn't suggest opening the links this user was adding. They crashed my browser with popups. There are far better places to link for exchange information. For example, the official sites for the exchanges, ... which also are not just advert laden mirrors of public data.
A google link: search for the domain he was adding has no results.
It could well be good faith link additions,.. but the account came back to life after two years of inactivity and has since done little more than add links a single sites links to a half dozen accounts ... At first blush this looks like it may be an old account that was compromised for spamming purposes.
I'd say that the crime here that templating was unoptimal.
How should this have been handled?
On Nov 6, 2007 6:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevelihn&curid=1313...
- A user given a spam1 template for inserting reasonably relevant
external links into three articles.
I wouldn't suggest opening the links this user was adding. They crashed my browser with popups. There are far better places to link for exchange information. For example, the official sites for the exchanges, ... which also are not just advert laden mirrors of public data.
They looked fine to me, but I've been using the Proxomitron web filter for so long that I often don't realize that other people aren't seeing the same Internet I am. For what I saw (good-faith addition of links that contain the content they say they do), the correct response would be to remove the links and drop a note on the user's page to the effect that Wikipedia is not a web directory. No vague wording, no accusations of spamming, and no floods of template markup in the edit dialog of the user's talk page.