the term 'USER' - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

the term 'USER'

RE: [WikiEN-l] Slogan policy

placeholder entry

Stevertigo

18 Mar 2003 18 Mar '03

7:32 a.m.

Doesnt it sound well... anti-collegial, ... I suggest maybe "Comrade:name" or com: for short... of editor: or ed: for short... or contributor... cont: for short...

Reply

Show replies by date

Brion Vibber

18 Mar 18 Mar

8:43 a.m.

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 23:32, Stevertigo wrote:

Doesnt it sound well... anti-collegial, ... I suggest maybe "Comrade:name" or com: for short... of editor: or ed: for short... or contributor... cont: for short...

Incidentally, the Polish, Esperanto, and Czech wikipedias use the local equivalent of 'Wikipedian' for the user page namespace. (Respectively, that's Wikipedysta:, Vikipediisto:, and Wikipediista:) -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Reply

Fred Bauder

9:55 a.m.

Editor Fred

From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo(a)attbi.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:32:34 -0800 To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: [WikiEN-l] the term 'USER' Doesnt it sound well... anti-collegial, ... I suggest maybe "Comrade:name" or com: for short... of editor: or ed: for short... or contributor... cont: for short... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

erik_moeller＠gmx.de

2:34 p.m.

The term User: is perfectly fine and would be a pain to update (external+internal links, Google etc.). Besides, Editor: suggests authority to newbies which is a bad idea. Wikipedian: is too easy to confuse with Wikipedia:. Regards, Erik

Reply

The Cunctator

3:35 p.m.

On 3/18/03 9:34 AM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:

The term User: is perfectly fine and would be a pain to update (external+internal links, Google etc.). Besides, Editor: suggests authority to newbies which is a bad idea. Wikipedian: is too easy to confuse with Wikipedia:.

Why is a suggestion of authority to newbies a bad idea?

Reply

Jimmy Wales

3:54 p.m.

The Cunctator wrote:

Why is a suggestion of authority to newbies a bad idea?

It might discourage or intimidate them from participating. People normally understand that anyone can be a "user" of a site, but usually "editor" means you have to be appointed or authorized. I think the term "user" helps to emphasize something radical about the wiki concept -- ordinary *users* can edit the site. It doesn't sound very radical to say that on wikipedia, the editors can edit the site. But it is radical, and intruiging to newcomers, to hear that users can edit the site. It's only a tidbit of language, though, so if we were starting from scratch, I'd be easy to persuade either way. But we already have a lot of "User:" links, so it seems best to keep things the way they are. --Jimbo

Reply

Toby Bartels

19 Mar 19 Mar

2:07 a.m.

Jimmy Wales wrote in part:

I think the term "user" helps to emphasize something radical about the wiki concept -- ordinary *users* can edit the site.

I agree with this. In practice, there are (at least) two classes of Wikipedia users: the ordinary users that come to look stuff up after a Google match, and the regular editors that come here to work on articles. But this distinction doesn't exist in theory, and it's good to encourage the idea that users (hey, that's me, I'm a user 'cause I just looked something up here!) are the people that edit the site (so that's me too!). -- Toby

Reply

Anthere

3:48 p.m.

I like the terminology user. Because I feel it is also possible to benefit from having an account as a *reader* only (so... as a user...) (mostly for the watch list - especially in those times of painful research through google) A simple reader would maybe not have the compulsion of creating an account if it is named "editor". And in truth, following one's watch list is truely addictive --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

Editor Fred

From: "Stevertigo" <stevertigo(a)attbi.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:32:34 -0800 To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: [WikiEN-l] the term 'USER' Doesnt it sound well... anti-collegial, ... I suggest maybe "Comrade:name" or com: for

short...

of editor: or ed: for short... or contributor...

cont: for short...

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

Reply

The Cunctator

4:15 p.m.

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 10:48, Anthere wrote:

I like the terminology user. Because I feel it is also possible to benefit from having an account as a *reader* only (so... as a user...) (mostly for the watch list - especially in those times of painful research through google) A simple reader would maybe not have the compulsion of creating an account if it is named "editor".

I have to say here that I'm in disagreement. "user" connotes a producer-consumer relationship (I create, you use; I sell, you buy; I produce, you consume) in its standard computer-lingo meaning ("lusers" vs "hackers" or "coders"), compounded by its association with the more common usage as shorthand for "drug user". Wherease "editor" connotes stewardship, power, collaboration (because to edit you need to build on someone else's work)--and therefore some responsibility, yes. But is that so bad? We want participants in Wikipedia to feel a sense of stewardship, power, collaboration, and responsibility. "contributor" is similarly a better word than "user", if you really dislike "editor".

Reply

Anthere

4:41 p.m.

--- The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 10:48, Anthere wrote:

I like the terminology user. Because I feel it is also possible to benefit from having an account as a *reader* only (so... as a user...) (mostly for the watch list - especially in those

times

of painful research through google) A simple reader would maybe not have the

compulsion of

creating an account if it is named "editor".

I have to say here that I'm in disagreement. "user" connotes a producer-consumer relationship (I create, you use; I sell, you buy; I produce, you consume) in its standard computer-lingo meaning ("lusers" vs "hackers" or "coders"), compounded by its association with the more common usage as shorthand for "drug user".

quite true

Wherease "editor" connotes stewardship, power, collaboration (because to edit you need to build on someone else's work)--and therefore some responsibility, yes. But is that so bad? We want participants in Wikipedia to feel a sense of stewardship, power, collaboration, and responsibility.

Also true but 'editor' excludes 'reader' in its meaning. I think it wrong.

"contributor" is similarly a better word than "user", if you really dislike "editor".

Contributor is the best of the three, as anyone can contribute in reading, or writing, or commenting, or developing the soft, or raising money... strong point of 'user' : it's short and easy to write :-) Une contributrice __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

Reply

Stevertigo

6:28 p.m.

Contributor is the best of the three, as anyone can contribute in reading, or writing, or commenting, or developing the soft, or raising money...

"Cont" for short? Too much like c*nt.. How about "Trib:" And the mascot can be a Tribble :) Not that this is going anywhere.... -SV

Reply

Toby Bartels

6:15 p.m.

The Cunctator wrote in part:

"user" connotes a producer-consumer relationship.

Whereas "editor" connotes stewardship, power, collaboration.

This may be the source of the conflict between the two groups. Because to me, "user" has no such unempowered connotation. As a user (not sysadmin) of the Unix system here at school, I expect (and get) input into how the system is run (requesting installations, reporting problems, etc -- and yes, even fixing things myself when I know how). -- Toby

Reply

Axel Boldt

18 Mar 18 Mar

5:13 p.m.

I never thought about it before, but I have to agree that "user" is not a good description of what we are; in some software circles it also has a negative connotation as in "just a user, what does he know". Somebody who runs Linux is a user, somebody who writes code for Linux is a contributor. Somebody who comes to Wikipedia in order to get some information is a user, somebody who writes and edits articles is a contributor. While we probably all qualify as users in the above sense, I think we are better described as "contributors" and I would favor a change. For a smooth transition, the web server could simply redirect /wiki/user:* to /wiki/contributor:* Axel __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com

Reply

Vicki Rosenzweig

9:41 p.m.

The advantage of the term "USER" is precisely that it's inclusive: it doesn't draw a sharp line between the people who spend too much of our time writing for the Wikipedia, those who do a few articles on things they care about, and those who come here looking for information on something specific. It also emphasizes that *the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a usable encyclopedia.* That I enjoy editing it is good, because it supports that goal: but the purpose is for Wikipedia to be *used* as a source of information. -- Vicki Rosenzweig vr(a)redbird.org http://www.redbird.org

Reply

Richard Grevers

10:13 p.m.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:41:54 -0500, Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org> wrote:

The advantage of the term "USER" is precisely that it's inclusive: it doesn't draw a sharp line between the people who spend too much of our time writing for the Wikipedia, those who do a few articles on things they care about, and those who come here looking for information on something specific. It also emphasizes that *the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a usable encyclopedia.* That I enjoy editing it is good, because it supports that goal: but the purpose is for Wikipedia to be *used* as a source of information.

*what she said* :-) -- Richard Grevers

Reply

Stevertigo

10:51 p.m.

>Richard Grevers:*what she said*

If there was a defense to be made for it, she put it quite eloquently...:) -SV

Reply

Ray Saintonge

5:18 p.m.

Stevertigo wrote:

Doesnt it sound well... anti-collegial, ... I suggest maybe "Comrade:name" or com: for short... of editor: or ed: for short...

This latter suggestion may give too much credit to our Uncle/Mister Ed. ;-)

Reply

7729

days inactive

7730

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

16 comments

12 participants

tags (0)

participants (12)

Anthere
Axel Boldt
Brion Vibber
erik_moeller＠gmx.de
Fred Bauder
Jimmy Wales
Ray Saintonge
Richard Grevers
Stevertigo
The Cunctator
Toby Bartels
Vicki Rosenzweig