Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the sixty pages of often acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the general heading of BJAODN. Not remove BJAODN, a collection of genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent archives. The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one, because it did not seem worthwhile tagging nearly sixty articles if there was clear consensus to keep. That didn't work: a lot of people think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or whatever; some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the whole lot is bundled. It's a mess. We'd like to know what, of anything, is the best way forward. We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
The debate is at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind]] if anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to discuss this.
Guy (JzG)
On 23/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
You haven't quantified any actual harm, and your last sentence is so far speculation. Got any hard info?
- d.
[[WP:BEANS]]?
On 24/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
You haven't quantified any actual harm, and your last sentence is so far speculation. Got any hard info?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:26:31 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
You haven't quantified any actual harm, and your last sentence is so far speculation. Got any hard info?
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
Guy (JzG)
On Friday 23 March 2007 12:22, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
You haven't quantified any actual harm, and your last sentence is so far speculation. Got any hard info?
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
Your assertion does not make it so.
Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to power-trip.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 12:22, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
You haven't quantified any actual harm, and your last sentence is so far speculation. Got any hard info?
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
Your assertion does not make it so.
Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to power-trip.
At least he's asking around first. There's one administrator who routinely targets harmless stuff like this, pisses people off, and doesn't care.
-Jeff
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:48:38 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
At least he's asking around first. There's one administrator who routinely targets harmless stuff like this, pisses people off, and doesn't care.
[[WP:SOAP]]
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:45:30 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
It promotes the idea that we celebrate childish vandalism. What is good about that, exactly?
Guy (JzG)
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:45:30 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
It promotes the idea that we celebrate childish vandalism. What is good about that, exactly?
<snip />
Actually, it promotes the idea that we are willing to recognize humor where it lies -- note that your definition of most of it as childish is inherently subjective -- I often find the humor of the people around me 'childish'. Since they are more mature than I, I must assume that it is a problem with me rather than them.
Remember that one oft cited complaint about bureaucracy is that it is humorless.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:14:40 -0800, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
It promotes the idea that we celebrate childish vandalism. What is good about that, exactly?
<snip />
Actually, it promotes the idea that we are willing to recognize humor where it lies -- note that your definition of most of it as childish is inherently subjective -- I often find the humor of the people around me 'childish'. Since they are more mature than I, I must assume that it is a problem with me rather than them.
Remember that one oft cited complaint about bureaucracy is that it is humorless.
No, I have no problem at all with humour. Or humor. As long as it is actually funny - but 99% of what's on the BJAODN pages is not. Not even remotely so.
Guy (JzG)
On Friday 23 March 2007 13:37, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
No, I have no problem at all with humour. Or humor. As long as it is actually funny - but 99% of what's on the BJAODN pages is not. Not even remotely so.
Says you...
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
On Friday 23 March 2007 13:37, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
No, I have no problem at all with humour. Or humor. As long as it is actually funny - but 99% of what's on the BJAODN pages is not. Not even remotely so.
Says you...
He's English.
Ec
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:14:40 -0800, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
It promotes the idea that we celebrate childish vandalism. What is good about that, exactly?
<snip />
Actually, it promotes the idea that we are willing to recognize humor where it lies -- note that your definition of most of it as childish is inherently subjective -- I often find the humor of the people around me 'childish'. Since they are more mature than I, I must assume that it is a problem with me rather than them.
Remember that one oft cited complaint about bureaucracy is that it is humorless.
No, I have no problem at all with humour. Or humor. As long as it is actually funny - but 99% of what's on the BJAODN pages is not. Not even remotely so.
<snip/>
This was the other point of my email: Who are you (and I mean this without acrimony) to decide what is and what is not funny? What are your credentials in this area? Sure, I find some of BJAODN to be humorless, gross or juvenile, but I don't think that this allows me to tell other people that that thing they are laughing at is not funny. If you don't like the humor contained in BJAODN, just stay away from that page, or create your own 'humorful' version in your userspace.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:22:37 -0700, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
This was the other point of my email: Who are you (and I mean this without acrimony) to decide what is and what is not funny? What are your credentials in this area?
I, sir, am an Englishman, resident in the BRITONS' Britain, and possessed of the Englishman's sense of humour, plus an education from a thousand-year-old school with a Pope as an alumnus.
That and the fact that most of it really is crap, honestly. Have you looked? Really? The emphasis really is on nonsense.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:22:37 -0700, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
This was the other point of my email: Who are you (and I mean this without acrimony) to decide what is and what is not funny? What are your credentials in this area?
I, sir, am an Englishman, resident in the BRITONS' Britain, and possessed of the Englishman's sense of humour, plus an education from a thousand-year-old school with a Pope as an alumnus.
That and the fact that most of it really is crap, honestly. Have you looked? Really? The emphasis really is on nonsense.
Guy (JzG)
Move it to meta? -~~~~
On Friday 23 March 2007 17:47, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
The emphasis really is on nonsense.
And that's somehow not funny because...
On 23/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:22:37 -0700, "Silas Snider" swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
This was the other point of my email: Who are you (and I mean this without acrimony) to decide what is and what is not funny? What are your credentials in this area?
I, sir, am an Englishman, resident in the BRITONS' Britain, and possessed of the Englishman's sense of humour, plus an education from a thousand-year-old school with a Pope as an alumnus.
That and the fact that most of it really is crap, honestly. Have you looked? Really? The emphasis really is on nonsense.
You're giving us a bad name... :-)
Yeah, there's an awful lot of nonsense. But most of the nonsense does at least tend to elicit a response of "you what?", for me anyway. YMMV of course.
And the "Real Life" article was *fantastic*.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:45:30 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
How is that "harmful"?
It promotes the idea that we celebrate childish vandalism. What is good about that, exactly?
It's called _bad_ jokes and deleted _nonsense._ This does not strike me as a celebratory title.
On 23/03/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
Your assertion does not make it so.
Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to power-trip.
I know anecdotally of a couple of complaints where malicious vandalism had been kept on BJAODN, and the subjects had stumbled across it...
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 23/03/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The harm is sixty pages of childish vandalism promoted as a Good Thing. And yes, the last sentence is speculation, explicitly so.
How is that "harmful"?
Your assertion does not make it so.
Looks like you're just looking for an excuse to power-trip.
I know anecdotally of a couple of complaints where malicious vandalism had been kept on BJAODN, and the subjects had stumbled across it...
BJAODN is not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy, so if there are complaints like this then removing the vandalism is a total no-brainer. But it's no reason to wipe the entire archive.
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
The existing material is a good example of what not to write and should stay as long as there is no chance that it could be mistaken for real WP content but to address your last point, perhaps it might be a good idea to "freeze" BJAODN. We already have enough bullshit thank you very much.
If someone wants to archive future WP:BULLSHIT, then let them start their own wiki for it or perhaps uncyclopedia would be interested in it.
I think there's some point here - there's a lot of junk on BJAODN that's just, well, junk. For instance, I don't think much of anyone is going to find much to recommend "CHUCK IS AN EVIL MAN WHO EATS TENNIS BALLS! HE JUST EATS THEM WITH MANGO SALSA!!!!" as humor.
On the other hand, "The Secretary-General of the UN can be distinguished from the General-Secretary of the UN in that whilst one is in charge of the entire world, the other types letters and answers phone calls." is in fact a bit funny.
But there's no real way to repair this without adding processcruft to BJAODN, so I suspect we should just call it a day and worry about bigger things.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 3/24/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
But there's no real way to repair this without adding processcruft to BJAODN, so I suspect we should just call it a day and worry about bigger things.
Can't we just dump the complete archive of BAJODN somewhere that isn't Wikipedia? Then keep a "best of"? If, in fact, we decide that we don't want to keep it all there.
Steve
Phil Sandifer wrote:
But there's no real way to repair this without adding processcruft to BJAODN, so I suspect we should just call it a day and worry about bigger things.
Actually that would the *perfect* addition to the top of BJAODN - a long section describing the addition and deletion rules in great depth, complete with voting and ultimately recourse to the "ArbCom", short for the "Arbitrary Commensalists". Plus make all the wikilinks in the section connect to appropriate Uncyclopedia articles, to help those not getting the hint.
:-)
Stan
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:29:13 -0700, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually that would the *perfect* addition to the top of BJAODN - a long section describing the addition and deletion rules in great depth, complete with voting and ultimately recourse to the "ArbCom", short for the "Arbitrary Commensalists". Plus make all the wikilinks in the section connect to appropriate Uncyclopedia articles, to help those not getting the hint.
Best idea yet :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:29:13 -0700, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually that would the *perfect* addition to the top of BJAODN - a long section describing the addition and deletion rules in great depth, complete with voting and ultimately recourse to the "ArbCom", short for the "Arbitrary Commensalists". Plus make all the wikilinks in the section connect to appropriate Uncyclopedia articles, to help those not getting the hint.
Best idea yet :-)
Guy (JzG)
Hmmm...
Are mailing list threads appropriate content for BJAODN?
-Rich
On 3/23/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's some point here - there's a lot of junk on BJAODN that's just, well, junk. For instance, I don't think much of anyone is going to find much to recommend "CHUCK IS AN EVIL MAN WHO EATS TENNIS BALLS! HE JUST EATS THEM WITH MANGO SALSA!!!!" as humor.
That's pretty damn hilarious, actually.
On the other hand, "The Secretary-General of the UN can be distinguished from the General-Secretary of the UN in that whilst one is in charge of the entire world, the other types letters and answers phone calls." is in fact a bit funny.
In fact, I find the incongruous image of eating tennis balls, with mango salsa no less, as an indicator of evilness, than the passage above, which is a simple pun on the word secretary.
Remember, it's called "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense", not "reasonably good jokes that Phil finds humorous." If Phil is correct in his opinion, than his first selection does a better job of qualifying as a bad joke.
In all seriousness, humor is a subjective thing.
I'm sorry, but this is the most annoying and depressing thing that Wikipedians have done. It's certainly predictable, of course.
BJAODN serves an important purpose for the encyclopedia and the community.
If you can't appreciate it, ignore it.
Please, I beg of you.
Stop this.
Please.
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the sixty pages of often acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the general heading of BJAODN. Not remove BJAODN, a collection of genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent archives. The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one, because it did not seem worthwhile tagging nearly sixty articles if there was clear consensus to keep. That didn't work: a lot of people think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or whatever; some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the whole lot is bundled. It's a mess. We'd like to know what, of anything, is the best way forward. We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
The debate is at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind]] if anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to discuss this.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't appreciate it, ignore it.
In other words, WP:DONTREADIT
As Rich notes, this thread has its own ironic value, just in time for the one-year anniversary of the first successful BJAODNFD...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bad_Jokes_and_O...
SJ
On 3/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is the most annoying and depressing thing that Wikipedians have done. It's certainly predictable, of course.
BJAODN serves an important purpose for the encyclopedia and the community.
If you can't appreciate it, ignore it.
Please, I beg of you.
Stop this.
Please.
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the sixty pages of often acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the general heading of BJAODN. Not remove BJAODN, a collection of genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent archives. The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one, because it did not seem worthwhile tagging nearly sixty articles if there was clear consensus to keep. That didn't work: a lot of people think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or whatever; some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the whole lot is bundled. It's a mess. We'd like to know what, of anything, is the best way forward. We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
The debate is at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind]] if anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to discuss this.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I really hope I'm being had by an early April's Fool's joke. If so, I tip my hat to JzG.
On 3/25/07, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
As Rich notes, this thread has its own ironic value, just in time for the one-year anniversary of the first successful BJAODNFD...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bad_Jokes_and_O...
SJ
On 3/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is the most annoying and depressing thing that Wikipedians have done. It's certainly predictable, of course.
BJAODN serves an important purpose for the encyclopedia and the community.
If you can't appreciate it, ignore it.
Please, I beg of you.
Stop this.
Please.
On 3/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Kingboyk and I thought the time had come to prune the 'pedia of the sixty pages of often acutely unfunny vandalism preserved under the general heading of BJAODN. Not remove BJAODN, a collection of genuinely if often unintentionally funny edits, but the 59 subsequent archives. The mechanism we employed was to MfD the current one, because it did not seem worthwhile tagging nearly sixty articles if there was clear consensus to keep. That didn't work: a lot of people think we want to delete all BJAODN (we don't, just prune it down to a rational size); some people want it kept outright as "harmless" or whatever; some say they won't advocate deletion of one, only if the whole lot is bundled. It's a mess. We'd like to know what, of anything, is the best way forward. We are both still of the opinion that keeping copies of many hundreds of decisively atrocious edits, the majority of which do not rise above the level of childish, is probably not worth the server resources committed to it. Plus, the insane mountain of crap makes it hard to sot the genuinely creative and funny ones, which was the point. I also feel that some editors deliberately introduce nonsense in the hope of making BJAODN, but that's an aside.
The debate is at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Close Encounters of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Kind]] if anyone wants to pitch in there, but there may be a better place to discuss this.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ++SJ
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l