Mr. Wales,
The debate is not over whether editors should be inflammatory and divisive, but over whether expressing personal opinions and (recently) making jokes in the user's own userpage that no one is required to read using pages residing in the Template: namespace is a valid example of behaving in a divisive and inflammatory manner. I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then by all means stay off my userpage, why do you have to go delete templates? Templates are obviously no more official than userpages since any person can create either.
What's more, some admins even speedy userboxes in the userpage as recreations of deleted content and this has been supported by ArbCom 8-1 or 9-0 (can't remember which) in a famous userbox hearing. So the matter is not even whether one can express personal opinions in template space, but also whether one can express personal opinions in user space. No one is debating whether editors should be divisive and inflammatory, don't make it appear so.
Molu
On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:02:46 -0400. Jimmy Wales wrote:
I have no idea why anyone is talking about decrees. CSD T1 is normal policy, created and confirmed in the normal way. It is a very simple natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory.
--Jimbo
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Molu wrote: [top-posting fixed]
On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:02:46 -0400. Jimmy Wales wrote:
I have no idea why anyone is talking about decrees. CSD T1 is normal policy, created and confirmed in the normal way. It is a very simple natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory.
Mr. Wales,
The debate is not over whether editors should be inflammatory and divisive, but over whether expressing personal opinions and (recently) making jokes in the user's own userpage that no one is required to read using pages residing in the Template: namespace is a valid example of behaving in a divisive and inflammatory manner.
It is.
Why?
Because you've created a new page purely for the purpose of inserting some junk onto the userpage associated with your username, and are encouraging others to do likewise.
I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then by all means stay off my userpage, why do you have to go delete templates?
Templates are *designed* for the insertion of commonly-used pieces of wikitext. If you think that personal opinions are a valid use of templates, you're on the wrong site.
Templates are obviously no more official than userpages since any person can create either.
Userpages aren't used in articles; templates are.
What's more, some admins even speedy userboxes in the userpage as recreations of deleted content and this has been supported by ArbCom 8-1 or 9-0 (can't remember which) in a famous userbox hearing. So the matter is not even whether one can express personal opinions in template space, but also whether one can express personal opinions in user space.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
No one is debating whether editors should be divisive and inflammatory, don't make it appear so.
At any rate, they shouldn't.
Molu wrote:
I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then by all means stay off my userpage,
And if you feel that the best way to participate on the Internet is by posting inflammatory statements on your userpage, then by all means stay off of Wikipedia. Go find a project which welcomes political rants and leave us alone.
--Jimbo
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Molu wrote:
I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then by all means stay off my userpage,
And if you feel that the best way to participate on the Internet is by posting inflammatory statements on your userpage, then by all means stay off of Wikipedia. Go find a project which welcomes political rants and leave us alone.
--Jimbo
Inforceing that one could be interesting. The effect of deleting
[[User:Kingstonjr]] [[User:Hashbrowns]] [[User:Markaci/Nudity]] [[User:Cyde/Weird pictures]] (seriously NSFW)
is unlikey to involve people acting calmly. At least going by the normal reaction of the various wikipedia is not censored groups.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
Inforceing that one could be interesting. The effect of deleting
[[User:Kingstonjr]] [[User:Hashbrowns]] [[User:Markaci/Nudity]] [[User:Cyde/Weird pictures]] (seriously NSFW)
is unlikey to involve people acting calmly. At least going by the normal reaction of the various wikipedia is not censored groups.
I'm personally going to see to it that most of [[User:Kingstonjr]] becomes a collection of dead links.
For those just tuning in now, Kingstonjr is uploading dozens if not hundreds of copyright-reserved images, making absurdly false statements regarding their status (public domain because he found them on Usenet!?!), and then using those copyright violations only on his User page.
- -- Sean Barrett | The Government is investigating you to find sean@epoptic.com | out why you don't trust the Government.
On 5/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I'm personally going to see to it that most of [[User:Kingstonjr]] becomes a collection of dead links.
Aren't there better ways to go about achieving that though? Maybe involving censure, stern warnings, blocks etc?
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Bennett stated for the record:
On 5/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
I'm personally going to see to it that most of [[User:Kingstonjr]] becomes a collection of dead links.
Aren't there better ways to go about achieving that though? Maybe involving censure, stern warnings, blocks etc?
Steve
Tagging and removal of copyright violations takes priority over beatings with the cluebat, unless the offender actively tries to resist the removal. So far, the process is working.
- -- Sean Barrett | The Government is investigating you to find sean@epoptic.com | out why you don't trust the Government.
On 5/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Tagging and removal of copyright violations takes priority over beatings with the cluebat, unless the offender actively tries to resist the removal. So far, the process is working.
Heh. I'm picturing the offender wandering along creating more copyvios while you sneak along cleaning up the old ones. One solid whack with the cluebat then puts the offender to sleep for a few minutes until you catch up with him...
Steve
On Wed, 17 May 2006 06:39:15 -0700, you wrote:
I'm personally going to see to it that most of [[User:Kingstonjr]] becomes a collection of dead links.
Yup. Pages like those serve a useful purpose, in that almost every image turns out to be a copyvio of some sort (Cyde's probably being an exception). I note that the Vargas pictures have all been asserted as free on the grounds that someone else violated the copyright first (not stated in those terms, of course). It's good that the people who do this are vain as well as stupid ;-)
Guy (JzG)
On 5/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Yup. Pages like those serve a useful purpose, in that almost every image turns out to be a copyvio of some sort (Cyde's probably being an exception).
There are at least a couple of fair use images still there.
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Inforceing that one could be interesting. The effect of deleting
[[User:Kingstonjr]] [[User:Hashbrowns]] [[User:Markaci/Nudity]] [[User:Cyde/Weird pictures]] (seriously NSFW)
is unlikey to involve people acting calmly. At least going by the normal reaction of the various wikipedia is not censored groups.
Can anyone explain to me why those pages arn't not just huge WP:POINT violations? They serve no other point than to make the point that wikipedia is not censored, and they are disruptive in doing it. Thus "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". These pages should be nuked on sight.
--Oskar
On May 17, 2006, at 12:23 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why those pages arn't not just huge WP:POINT violations? They serve no other point than to make the point that wikipedia is not censored, and they are disruptive in doing it. Thus "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". These pages should be nuked on sight.
Try reading WP:POINT again. I think "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is a misleading title anyway—the better title is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally".
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Try reading WP:POINT again. I think "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is a misleading title anyway—the better title is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally".
How about "Don't disrupt Wikipedia while making your point" - I agree with your assessment of misleadingness.
Steve
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Try reading WP:POINT again. I think "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is a misleading title anyway—the better title is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally".
How about "Don't disrupt Wikipedia while making your point" - I agree with your assessment of misleadingness.
Steve
I wonder whether speedy deletions under proposed criteria come under the category of disrupting wikipedia to make a point.
Peter
On 18/05/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether speedy deletions under proposed criteria come under the category of disrupting wikipedia to make a point.
Depends on the scale and nature of the disruption, and the consequences overall.
Rob Church
On 5/18/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether speedy deletions under proposed criteria come under the category of disrupting wikipedia to make a point.
Depends on the scale and nature of the disruption, and the consequences overall.
Rob Church
Has anyone ever made up a Wikipedia: essay on the emerging results of this sociological phenomena. The scale and nature of the disruption of community actions would be perfect to put in one of those. In all good faith it could be used as a historical document with learning objectives for the future.
Peter
On 5/17/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Molu wrote:
I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that then by all means stay off my userpage,
And if you feel that the best way to participate on the Internet is by posting inflammatory statements on your userpage, then by all means stay off of Wikipedia. Go find a project which welcomes political rants and leave us alone.
--Jimbo
Inforceing that one could be interesting. The effect of deleting
[[User:Kingstonjr]] [[User:Hashbrowns]] [[User:Markaci/Nudity]] [[User:Cyde/Weird pictures]] (seriously NSFW)
is unlikey to involve people acting calmly. At least going by the normal reaction of the various wikipedia is not censored groups.
-- geni
And hence the irony in the chain of events leading to the current userbox controversy.
Although wikipedia is indeed a sociological phenomena, it is still the first experiment of its type, and as such it cannot make itself based on prior rules. However, that is still not a reason, in good faith, to force ones hand by using practical actions without an objective statement of why actions are being taken.
Peter
On 5/16/06, Molu loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
I think George W. Bush is a criminal, if you feel offended by that
then by all means stay off my userpage
Is this a challenge? There is a reasonable limit on what one can say on a userpage,
"Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" are specifically disallowed in the guideline "Wikipedia:User page". While this is a guideline, and not policy, it does create a presumption that, if someone objected to an apparently polemical statement on your userpage, you'd at least undertake a good faith effort to demonstrate how this benefits the project. You really don't get to tell the fellow "stay off my userpage."
I can see a lot of administrators getting pretty worried if you persistently retained a statement of personal opinion similar to the one you gave above on a page anywhere in Wikipedia.
On 17/05/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
"Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" are specifically disallowed in the guideline "Wikipedia:User page". While this is a guideline, and not policy, it does create a presumption that, if someone objected to an apparently polemical statement on your userpage, you'd at least undertake a good faith effort to demonstrate how this benefits the project. You really don't get to tell the fellow "stay off my userpage."
That ought to become one of our de facto policies; it would lash back at most of the MySpace and LiveJournal wannabes, who could then go all emo, get such a blog and start writing about how mean Wikipedia is for wanting to emphasise improving content, not hosting all sorts of crap
I can see a lot of administrators getting pretty worried if you persistently retained a statement of personal opinion similar to the one you gave above on a page anywhere in Wikipedia.
Worried? I can see a lot of them jumping to block.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 17/05/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
"Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" are specifically disallowed in the guideline "Wikipedia:User page". While this is a guideline, and not policy, it does create a presumption that, if someone objected to an apparently polemical statement on your userpage, you'd at least undertake a good faith effort to demonstrate how this benefits the project. You really don't get to tell the fellow "stay off my userpage."
That ought to become one of our de facto policies; it would lash back at most of the MySpace and LiveJournal wannabes, who could then go all emo, get such a blog and start writing about how mean Wikipedia is for wanting to emphasise improving content, not hosting all sorts of crap
What's "emo"?
I can see a lot of administrators getting pretty worried if you persistently retained a statement of personal opinion similar to the one you gave above on a page anywhere in Wikipedia.
Worried? I can see a lot of them jumping to block.
I'm not particularly concerned about such comments about a political figure on a user page; it says a lot about that user in very concise terms.
Nevertheless, I would be more concerned about the uneven application of such a policy to one end of the political spectrum only.
Ec
On 5/17/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What's "emo"?
From [[Emo (sland)]]
Alternative uses
The term "emo" has also been used in recent years on the Internet as a form of derogatory insult, especially toward those who appear emotionally unstable, or those who talk about issues in their lives to people in public forums or chat rooms. Similar to popular curses, it tends to be used as a general insult even when it is not directly applicable. Phrases such as "don't cry emo kid" are used frequently as a quick brush-off in this context. Some use the term "emo" to describe a feeling of depression, harking back to the association of depression with the Emo subculture.
(I'm just taking a guess here)
Steve
On May 17, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's "emo"?
{{pov}}
Emo is a widely-mocked youth subculture that's all about venting depression and angst (particularly over the internet), often via poetry of questionable literary merit. Like most youth subcultures, it started from a musical genre of equally questionable artistic merit.
On 5/17/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 17, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's "emo"?
{{pov}}
Emo is a widely-mocked youth subculture that's all about venting depression and angst (particularly over the internet), often via poetry of questionable literary merit. Like most youth subcultures, it started from a musical genre of equally questionable artistic merit.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And they can show transvestitistic traits (is transvestitistic a word, even?)
On 5/17/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
On 17/05/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I can see a lot of administrators getting pretty worried if you persistently retained a statement of personal opinion similar to the one you gave above on a page anywhere in Wikipedia.
Worried? I can see a lot of them jumping to block.
I'm not particularly concerned about such comments about a political figure on a user page; it says a lot about that user in very concise terms.
Nevertheless, I would be more concerned about the uneven application of such a policy to one end of the political spectrum only.
Oh that old canard. Policy is enforced by a large collection of individual administrators, so it is always going to be uneven. That's no excuse not to enforce policy.