I think it's possible to reach a compromise where users can keep their userboxes (even the silly ones) while eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the potential for creating POV factions. I wanted to get some feedback here before tossing it out to the wolves.
The core of my proposal is that anything that doesn't help to create the encyclopedia shouldn't exist as a userbox template. Instead, it should exist as code which users would be free to paste onto their user pages. Thus, to anyone viewing a user's page, the userboxes would look exactly as they do now, but the harmful side-effects (easy identification of POV factions, increased server load, etc..) would mostly be eliminated.
Userboxes that do help in building the encyclopedia would be allowed to remain as templates. This would include the Babel templates or anything that concerns a user's skills or expertise.
The "approved" userbox template would be listed in central location and any user could add them to their user pages. There would have to be consensus to approve any new templates.
The "unapproved" userboxes would also be listed a central location, but they could be added to this repository by anyone. They would exist only as code and an example of what the userbox looks like. This code would have to be free of fair-use images and must not include any categories. Any "unapproved" userboxes that existed as templates could be speedily deleted.
With this setup, a userbox stating "This user is a Democrat" would be no different that a sentence on their user page stating that they're a Democrat. The user wouldn't be included in a category and couldn't be identified through Whatlinkshere. There also wouldn't be any concerns about censorship or stifling of free speech.
I'm sure this proposal could use some development, but it's a start. Thoughts?
Carbonite
On 1/4/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's possible to reach a compromise where users can keep their userboxes (even the silly ones) while eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the potential for creating POV factions. I wanted to get some feedback here before tossing it out to the wolves.
The core of my proposal is that anything that doesn't help to create the encyclopedia shouldn't exist as a userbox template. Instead, it should exist as code which users would be free to paste onto their user pages. Thus, to anyone viewing a user's page, the userboxes would look exactly as they do now, but the harmful side-effects (easy identification of POV factions, increased server load, etc..) would mostly be eliminated.
Userboxes that do help in building the encyclopedia would be allowed to remain as templates. This would include the Babel templates or anything that concerns a user's skills or expertise.
The "approved" userbox template would be listed in central location and any user could add them to their user pages. There would have to be consensus to approve any new templates.
The "unapproved" userboxes would also be listed a central location, but they could be added to this repository by anyone. They would exist only as code and an example of what the userbox looks like. This code would have to be free of fair-use images and must not include any categories. Any "unapproved" userboxes that existed as templates could be speedily deleted.
With this setup, a userbox stating "This user is a Democrat" would be no different that a sentence on their user page stating that they're a Democrat. The user wouldn't be included in a category and couldn't be identified through Whatlinkshere. There also wouldn't be any concerns about censorship or stifling of free speech.
I'm sure this proposal could use some development, but it's a start. Thoughts?
If you really wanted to be thorough, you'd need two further qualifications:
1. No images in userboxes, since the usage list for, say, a donkey used in the Democrat userbox would show all the user-page inclusions of the code. 2. Similarly, no links to articles in userboxes. If, say, the code for the Democrat userbox contained [[U.S. Democratic Party]], a determined individual could examine Whatlinkshere for that article to identify all users with the code. There would be some false positives, obviously, from unrelated users having the link on their userpage; but not so many that this would be infeasible.
The other option, obviously, is to avoid relying on technological solutions to an essentially social problem ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's possible to reach a compromise where users can keep their userboxes (even the silly ones) while eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the potential for creating POV factions. I wanted to get some feedback here before tossing it out to the wolves.
The core of my proposal is that anything that doesn't help to create the encyclopedia shouldn't exist as a userbox template. Instead, it should exist as code which users would be free to paste onto their user pages. Thus, to anyone viewing a user's page, the userboxes would look exactly as they do now, but the harmful side-effects (easy identification of POV factions, increased server load, etc..) would mostly be eliminated.
Userboxes that do help in building the encyclopedia would be allowed to remain as templates. This would include the Babel templates or anything that concerns a user's skills or expertise.
The "approved" userbox template would be listed in central location and any user could add them to their user pages. There would have to be consensus to approve any new templates.
The "unapproved" userboxes would also be listed a central location, but they could be added to this repository by anyone. They would exist only as code and an example of what the userbox looks like. This code would have to be free of fair-use images and must not include any categories. Any "unapproved" userboxes that existed as templates could be speedily deleted.
With this setup, a userbox stating "This user is a Democrat" would be no different that a sentence on their user page stating that they're a Democrat. The user wouldn't be included in a category and couldn't be identified through Whatlinkshere. There also wouldn't be any concerns about censorship or stifling of free speech.
I'm sure this proposal could use some development, but it's a start. Thoughts?
If you really wanted to be thorough, you'd need two further qualifications:
- No images in userboxes, since the usage list for, say, a donkey
used in the Democrat userbox would show all the user-page inclusions of the code. 2. Similarly, no links to articles in userboxes. If, say, the code for the Democrat userbox contained [[U.S. Democratic Party]], a determined individual could examine Whatlinkshere for that article to identify all users with the code. There would be some false positives, obviously, from unrelated users having the link on their userpage; but not so many that this would be infeasible.
The other option, obviously, is to avoid relying on technological solutions to an essentially social problem ;-)
You're certainly correct on those points, but this proposal would go a long way towards addressing the current problems with userboxes. I think this issue needs to be solved by a combination of technical solutions (making the userboxes simply a statement than a membership in a faction) and social solutions (any suggestions?).
Carbonite
On 1/4/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
You're certainly correct on those points, but this proposal would go a long way towards addressing the current problems with userboxes. I think this issue needs to be solved by a combination of technical solutions (making the userboxes simply a statement than a membership in a faction) and social solutions (any suggestions?).
There is, incidentally, a halfway decent technical solution; unfortunately, it runs afoul of [[Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates]]:
1. Eliminate the categories linked from userboxes (this is a basic starting step for any scheme of this sort). 2. Re-implement the templates in question using {{switch}} (see, for example, {{User religion}}). Since the meaning of the template depends on the parameter given, Whatlinkshere is no longer useful; someone looking through it will see anyone who has a religion userbox, rather than those of a particular religion, for instance.
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Damn. Clever stuff. Would probably work, too.
POV templates (1) use case, (2) no cat.
So coalesce the templates: a perfect mergist solution,
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Damn. Clever stuff. Would probably work, too.
POV templates (1) use case, (2) no cat.
So coalesce the templates: a perfect mergist solution,
The only problem is it kills the servers. :)
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Damn. Clever stuff. Would probably work, too. POV templates (1) use case, (2) no cat. So coalesce the templates: a perfect mergist solution,
The only problem is it kills the servers. :)
There are ways to do it without killing the servers. Currently there are two different ways (one based on a 'hiddenStructure' CSS trick and one based on parameter defaults for unset parameters) of doing conditional logic which do not involve meta-templates. All of the big meta-templates are being re-written based on these concepts.
The same could be done for this 'hide in plain sight' concept on the grouping templates.
You know I suspect that we're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Why don't we just let people keep their userbox templates but remove the categories? I'm pretty sure that doing so would make instances of abuse pretty rare. The boxes themselves aren't really much of a problem, they're just a means of self-expression.
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You know I suspect that we're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Why don't we just let people keep their userbox templates but remove the categories? I'm pretty sure that doing so would make instances of abuse pretty rare. The boxes themselves aren't really much of a problem, they're just a means of self-expression.
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum. I still think removing the categories is a good idea, even if it allows Whatlinkshere to be used by POV crusaders.
Carbonite
On 1/5/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
Welcome to the Eternal September of Wikipedia.
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
Welcome to the Eternal September of Wikipedia.
I suspect that, had you tried to remove the categories before this entire affair had occurred, you could have done so with little objection; and that, once this fades from memory somewhat, you'll be able to do so as well.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people right now who wouldn't normally care about userboxes, but, in the current atmosphere, will view any attempt to change them as an extension of the initial deletion spree. Completely unfair - but pretty unavoidable, at this point.
Kirill Lokshin
On 1/5/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You know I suspect that we're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Why don't we just let people keep their userbox templates but remove the categories? I'm pretty sure that doing so would make instances of abuse pretty rare. The boxes themselves aren't really much of a problem, they're just a means of self-expression.
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
Ah yes, an editor who manages to devote only 6% of his edits to articles, who has apparently never felt the need to make even *one* comment on an article Talk: page, and who has 4 times as many edits to his user page as to the encyclopedia itself. Well, on the bright side, he appears to have only 26 userboxes on his user page.
Um, what are these people doing here again?
Jay.
Give people their own page/room/clothing and a way to customize it, and do so to show their identity, as an end in itself. Seems pretty harmless.
On 1/5/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You know I suspect that we're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Why don't we just let people keep their userbox templates but remove the categories? I'm pretty sure that doing so would make instances of abuse pretty rare. The boxes themselves aren't really much of a problem, they're just a means of self-expression.
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
Ah yes, an editor who manages to devote only 6% of his edits to articles, who has apparently never felt the need to make even *one* comment on an article Talk: page, and who has 4 times as many edits to his user page as to the encyclopedia itself. Well, on the bright side, he appears to have only 26 userboxes on his user page.
Um, what are these people doing here again?
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Sorry, a typo completely destroyed my meaning -- that should have said "Give people their own page/room/clothing and a way to customize it, and THEY'LL do so to show their identity, as an end in itself."
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate construct from the encyclopedia. (Whether the foundation can really afford the server load is another matter; I don't know the details.)
On 1/5/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You know I suspect that we're making this whole thing unnecessarily complicated. Why don't we just let people keep their userbox templates but remove the categories? I'm pretty sure that doing so would make instances of abuse pretty rare. The boxes themselves aren't really much of a problem, they're just a means of self-expression.
I tried removing the categories from the templates that had been nominated for deletion. This was reverted almost immediately...by someone with less than 50 article edits (but with over 700 total edits). That's when I began to wonder who was running the asylum.
Ah yes, an editor who manages to devote only 6% of his edits to articles, who has apparently never felt the need to make even *one* comment on an article Talk: page, and who has 4 times as many edits to his user page as to the encyclopedia itself. Well, on the bright side, he appears to have only 26 userboxes on his user page.
Um, what are these people doing here again?
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 1/5/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate construct from the encyclopedia.
Why is this cool?
On 1/7/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate construct from the encyclopedia.
Why is this cool?
Agree with Tony on this question. The userspace is not separate from the encyclopedia; if it is, it is getting misused.
SCZenz
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
On 1/7/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate
construct from
the encyclopedia.
Why is this cool?
Agree with Tony on this question. The userspace is not separate from the encyclopedia; if it is, it is getting misused.
Plainly the userspace *is* a different space. Different rules apply. For example, POV is allowed on user pages, and while we don't shrink from editing article or talk pages, we don't modify others' user pages. They are private, personal, full of OR and opinionated in ways that WP is not and can never be.
If there are different rules and different modes of behaviour and discourse, then clearly it is a different cyber-region. It would be wise to accept and understand this, rather than trying to enforce the same standards and rules that apply to WP.
Having said that, there is considerable overlap, and obiously the userspace is closer to the articlespace than it is to (say) PhotoBucket or Google.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
On 1/7/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate
construct from
the encyclopedia.
Why is this cool?
Agree with Tony on this question. The userspace is not separate from the encyclopedia; if it is, it is getting misused.
Plainly the userspace *is* a different space. Different rules apply. For example, POV is allowed on user pages, and while we don't shrink from editing article or talk pages, we don't modify others' user pages. They are private, personal, full of OR and opinionated in ways that WP is not and can never be.
If there are different rules and different modes of behaviour and discourse, then clearly it is a different cyber-region. It would be wise to accept and understand this, rather than trying to enforce the same standards and rules that apply to WP.
Having said that, there is considerable overlap, and obiously the userspace is closer to the articlespace than it is to (say) PhotoBucket or Google.
The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can (and do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose. People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but it is not a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand. Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.
SCZenz
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can (and do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose. People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but it is not a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand. Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.
I think the community role is important, and surely it is up to the community as to how the userspace evolves. Granted, the production of an encyclopaedia is the focus, but WP is run by consensus as few other internet communities are, and in many ways it is not a matter of dictating how things will happen so much as hanging on for the ride and watching what happens!
By and large userland seems to be a relatively tranquil nation, and I make no doubt that even the current user template row will find its own happy compromise soon enough. My appreciation of the WP community is that it is one that values freedom and "leeway" very highly, but co-operation in the shared goal is valued higher still.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can (and do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose. People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but it is not a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand. Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.
I think the community role is important, and surely it is up to the community as to how the userspace evolves. Granted, the production of an encyclopaedia is the focus, but WP is run by consensus as few other internet communities are, and in many ways it is not a matter of dictating how things will happen so much as hanging on for the ride and watching what happens!
By and large userland seems to be a relatively tranquil nation, and I make no doubt that even the current user template row will find its own happy compromise soon enough. My appreciation of the WP community is that it is one that values freedom and "leeway" very highly, but co-operation in the shared goal is valued higher still.
Um, I am indeed opposed to ticking positive contributors off, and so I don't like mass deletions of harmless userboxes. Making people happy is good, because it helps the project.
But Wikipedia is only run by consensus to a certain point. Users cannot decide, by consensus, to devote any page anywhere on Wikipedia to *anything* that hurts the encyclopedia.
SCZenz
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
On 1/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of SCZenz
The userspace is *for* building the encyclopedia, and we can (and do) edit userpages that are clearly for another purpose. People are allowed quite a bit of leeway at current, but
it is not
a right or a good thing for that leeway to expand. Wikipedia is not (primarily) an experiment in evolving online communities, and it is certainly not a webhosting service.
I think the community role is important, and surely it is up to the community as to how the userspace evolves. Granted, the
production of
an encyclopaedia is the focus, but WP is run by consensus
as few other
internet communities are, and in many ways it is not a matter of dictating how things will happen so much as hanging on for
the ride and watching what happens!
By and large userland seems to be a relatively tranquil
nation, and I
make no doubt that even the current user template row will find its own happy compromise soon enough. My appreciation of the WP
community
is that it is one that values freedom and "leeway" very highly, but co-operation in the shared goal is valued higher still.
Um, I am indeed opposed to ticking positive contributors off, and so I don't like mass deletions of harmless userboxes. Making people happy is good, because it helps the project.
But Wikipedia is only run by consensus to a certain point. Users cannot decide, by consensus, to devote any page anywhere on Wikipedia to *anything* that hurts the encyclopedia.
We've had this discussion before, when neo-Nazis threatened to mobilise and take WP over. Of course it came to nothing, but Jimbo indicated that if it came to gaming consensus by stacking the numbers, then the rules would be changed to defeat the "putsch".
But I doubt it would get that far. As I say, the community values co-operation in the shared goal higher than any other activity and internal threats seem to be dealt with adequately. Not quickly, but effectively.
Peter (Skyring)
On 07/01/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
To save this from double-posthood, this is a kind of cool development -- the userspace is coming into its own as a separate construct from the encyclopedia.
Why is this cool?
I think he means "cool" in the sense of "particularly interesting", rather than "beneficial". Wikipedia is not a social experiment, but sometimes it behaves like an undirected one when we're not looking.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg
Ah yes, an editor who manages to devote only 6% of his edits to articles, who has apparently never felt the need to make even *one* comment on an article Talk: page, and who has 4 times as many edits to his user page as to the encyclopedia itself. Well, on the bright side, he appears to have only 26 userboxes on his user page.
Um, what are these people doing here again?
Being demonised instead of guided, it would seem. If long-established editors greet newcomers with hostility, they should hardly be surprised when this behaviour is taken as the established norm.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg
Ah yes, an editor who manages to devote only 6% of his edits to articles, who has apparently never felt the need to make even *one* comment on an article Talk: page, and who has 4 times as many edits to his user page as to the encyclopedia itself. Well, on the bright side, he appears to have only 26 userboxes on his user page.
Um, what are these people doing here again?
Being demonised instead of guided, it would seem. If long-established editors greet newcomers with hostility, they should hardly be surprised when this behaviour is taken as the established norm.
They haven't been demonised, nor greeted with hostility; I'm not sure where you got that from.
Jay.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposal onuserboxdisagreement)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Being demonised instead of guided, it would seem. If
long-established
editors greet newcomers with hostility, they should hardly be surprised when this behaviour is taken as the established norm.
They haven't been demonised, nor greeted with hostility; I'm not sure where you got that from.
Right here, brother. Step back and read your comments with the eyes of those whom you are dunking in [[vitriol]].
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposal onuserboxdisagreement)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Being demonised instead of guided, it would seem. If
long-established
editors greet newcomers with hostility, they should hardly be surprised when this behaviour is taken as the established norm.
They haven't been demonised, nor greeted with hostility; I'm not sure where you got that from.
Right here, brother. Step back and read your comments with the eyes of those whom you are dunking in [[vitriol]].
Sigh. They're not here, I'm not interacting with them, and the vitriol seems to be something you have invented.
Jay.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:37 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposalonuserboxdisagreement)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of jayjg Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userbox compromise proposal (Was: Proposal onuserboxdisagreement)
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Being demonised instead of guided, it would seem. If
long-established
editors greet newcomers with hostility, they should hardly be surprised when this behaviour is taken as the established norm.
They haven't been demonised, nor greeted with hostility; I'm not sure where you got that from.
Right here, brother. Step back and read your comments with
the eyes of
those whom you are dunking in [[vitriol]].
Sigh. They're not here, I'm not interacting with them, and the vitriol seems to be something you have invented.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. After all, only you and I know what is in our hearts, and words are an imperfect medium, especially when all we see is the bland ASCII characters.
I withdraw the "dunking in vitriol" comment. It was uneccessary and unjustified.
Perhaps the question is how do we deal with the proliferation of userboxes?
My feeling is that reacting with hostility and brutality is only going to escalate matters. I'm more inclined to ridicule and humiliation, especially with those self-identifying as self-pleasurers, but again, this is perhaps not the optimum approach.
I'd like to say that making use of the Golden Rule and setting an example by encouraging good behaviour and warning against bad behaviour is my preferred approach, but again, that's easy for me to say, because I'm not the person doing it.
Peter (Skyring)
On 1/4/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote: [..]
With this setup, a userbox stating "This user is a Democrat" would be no different that a sentence on their user page stating that they're a Democrat. The user wouldn't be included in a category and couldn't be identified through Whatlinkshere. There also wouldn't be any concerns about censorship or stifling of free speech.
I'm sure this proposal could use some development, but it's a start. Thoughts?
Looks good. Perhaps a bot to chase around doing the necessary substing of unapproved templates, or at least to identify candidates that someone can fix manually--the code to do this is trivial.
I can't see how this solves anything.
You can still use Google for example to find everyone.
User's will be able to solicit votes whether there are user template boxes or not. Finding editors speaking a certain language or geographical location can help rallying troops for long standing national enmity POV wars. (Think Asia, Eastern Europe, etc)
People can go through the talk page archives to find anyone who has expressed a certain POV in the past. I've seen this for example at an [[Intelligent Design]] straw poll.
The general problem is that with a growing number of editors the consensus building starts to give way to [[mass politics]].
Fewer and fewer editors know or remember each other by name.
I'm not sure if there is an easy solution. Maybe an eBay rating / Slashdot karma like system is the way to go.
nyenyec
On 1/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/06, Carbonite carbonite.wp@gmail.com wrote: [..]
With this setup, a userbox stating "This user is a Democrat" would be no different that a sentence on their user page stating that they're a Democrat. The user wouldn't be included in a category and couldn't be identified through Whatlinkshere. There also wouldn't be any concerns about censorship or stifling of free speech.
I'm sure this proposal could use some development, but it's a start. Thoughts?
Looks good. Perhaps a bot to chase around doing the necessary substing of unapproved templates, or at least to identify candidates that someone can fix manually--the code to do this is trivial. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/4/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if there is an easy solution. Maybe an eBay rating / Slashdot karma like system is the way to go.
Possibly a trust metric. I seem to recall that Slashdot's system lets you see friends, freaks, friends of friends, friends of freaks, etc, but I'm not sure that this sort of thing helps. In Slashdot's case I think the tinkering with Karma and the like developed into an arms race, and in any case Slashcode is more user-tunable; reading at level 3 I never see any nonsense, but you can't operate a decision-making process in that way.