On 1/3/06 1:08 PM, "wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org" wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 05:37:24 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, many people don't care about the userboxes, but are instead upset over the way with which their deletion has been handled. More deletions at this point may solve the userbox problem, but not the community interaction problem.
If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that unproductive members of the community do less harm than trying to take away their toys does. You end up alienating a lot more people than you thought you would.
Ryan
Not to sound elitist but I probably will but WHO CARES if we alienate a few people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia? If someone is so riled that their little sticker that says "Caring Cat Owner" (yes, it does exist at Template:User_Caring_Cat_Owner) is no longer allowed, so much so that they decided to leave the project then I say don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. We ARE NOT going to miss those people.
If this community and this project should have learned any damn thing from the Siegenthaler fiasco it is that QUALITY matters more than QUANTITY and that translates on down the line. I would rather have 100 thoughtful editors than 1000 who don't have a clue.
Does this mean that I think we should have some sort of test or requirement for editors? Of course not. Does it mean that we shouldn't let everyone on in to contribute? Of course not. What it does mean is that any addition to the project needs to be closely scrutinized with a cost/benefit analysis -- does this feature, project, fork, or what have you offer more benefit to the project than it could cause harm? We apply the same criteria to special protection -- do anonymous editors add more benefit to controversial articles than they could cause harm? Absolutely not and we've developed a process to deal with that.
In the case of user boxes, outside of the babel boxes, I think this whole matter has demonstrated without a single doubt ABSOLUTELY NOT and they should be terminated.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)
On 1/3/06, W. Guy Finley wgfinley@dynascope.com wrote:
On 1/3/06 1:08 PM, "wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org" wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org wrote:
From: Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 05:37:24 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, many people don't care about the userboxes, but are instead upset over the way with which their deletion has been handled. More deletions at this point may solve the userbox problem, but not the community interaction problem.
If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that unproductive members of the community do less harm than trying to take away their toys does. You end up alienating a lot more people than you thought you would.
Ryan
Not to sound elitist but I probably will but WHO CARES if we alienate a few people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia? If someone is so riled that their little sticker that says "Caring Cat Owner" (yes, it does exist at Template:User_Caring_Cat_Owner) is no longer allowed, so much so that they decided to leave the project then I say don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out. We ARE NOT going to miss those people.
As a general rule we can get by after loseing pretty much anyone. that doesn't mean we should.
If this community and this project should have learned any damn thing from the Siegenthaler fiasco it is that QUALITY matters more than QUANTITY and that translates on down the line. I would rather have 100 thoughtful editors than 1000 who don't have a clue.
Evidence that useing user boxes = editor that doesn't have a clue
Does this mean that I think we should have some sort of test or requirement for editors? Of course not. Does it mean that we shouldn't let everyone on in to contribute? Of course not. What it does mean is that any addition to the project needs to be closely scrutinized with a cost/benefit analysis -- does this feature, project, fork, or what have you offer more benefit to the project than it could cause harm? We apply the same criteria to special protection -- do anonymous editors add more benefit to controversial articles than they could cause harm? Absolutely not and we've developed a process to deal with that.
Maybe but once we throw in a cost benifit analyisis of doeing cost benifit analyisis I think we find that they are not worthwhile.
In the case of user boxes, outside of the babel boxes, I think this whole matter has demonstrated without a single doubt ABSOLUTELY NOT and they should be terminated.
--Guy (User:Wgfinley)
Nah I like it when people admit their baises. Saves a lot of time. To be honest how often do you read user pages anyway? Personaly I feel sorry for anyone reading mine.
-- geni
geni wrote:
To be honest how often do you read user pages anyway? Personaly I feel sorry for anyone reading mine.
I always skim a person's user page before leaving a note for them. If nothing else, it helps me know which arguments are most likely to be persuasive. Taking a page from Tom Sawyer, why edit a hundred pages myself if I can talk somebody else into doing it? My own edit count doesn't need any more pumping up. :-)
More seriously, I think additional user page info helps foster a collaborative atmosphere. If someone apologizes in advance for being a habitual bad speller, I'm more likely to help out by doing a copyedit pass, or to pick a recent real case, a South African interested in aviation is likely to have ready access to books too obscure for any university library in Nevada.
Stan
On 1/3/06, W. Guy Finley wgfinley@dynascope.com wrote:
Not to sound elitist but I probably will but WHO CARES if we alienate a few people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia?
Quite. Indeed, this is not the kind of user that shouldn't be welcome on Wikipedia. This isn't a hosting service. A user page is provided for the sole pupose of building an encyclopedia.