From: "Guardian Tor " guardian-tor@operamail.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:09:46 +0900 Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Our latest guest Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com

Well now, someone seems to be ever-so-slightly pissed at me. ;-)

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Response_to_Stephen_Gilbert

- Stephen G.

OH MY!!!! Sorry Stephen, but if 24 weren't clearly on the loony fringe, this would be funny. Speaking of which, I really do wonder where it lives and if it's loony enough to seek out those of us nearby.

JHK

________________________________ Message: 12 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:34:56 -0700 From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com

Is 24 aware of the existence of this mailing list? The mailing list format is much better for discussing these meta-issues.

JHK writes: Perhaps, but it seems to want to preserve its anonymity... And I'd rather read less of his crap than more.

Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:

24 also created [[wikipedia:Natural Point of View]] as some type of replacement of NPOV,

I'll have to read this, but NPOV is non-negotiable. So long as stuff like this is on the meta wikipedia, that's fine, though. He's entitled to his opinions, and we're entitled to ignore him or learn from him, as may be appropriate.

JHK writes:

Fine in theory, but his Natural POV permeates everything he writes -- of which there is far too much, IMHO

makes other articles that are improperly capitalized, such as [[Green Movement]], after he/she is made aware of naming

conventions,

he/she also makes improperly pluralized pages such as [[Eco-villages]]

knowing about that policy etc., etc., etc., etc.

Improper capitalization is bad.

An analogy, would be a news agency that is more concerned with making news than reporting it. Should wikipedia become a place where crackpots can

air

their views and gain unwarranted exposure? Should we be in the

business of

legitimizing terms and definitions that Google can only find a small

handfull

of examples of? Do we want wikpedia to become a soapbox?

I would say "no", "yes" and "no". :-) Let me explain.

Let's say there is a term -- "military fiat" which is not widely used, but which does have a fairly consistent usage when it is used. Then, our article on it should describe what the term means, and who uses it that way.

The particular article, [[Military fiat]] is pretty bad currently, but I don't think that the existence of the article is problematic. A quick search of google reveals that "military fiat" is not a common expression, but when it is used, it does mean "a process whereby a decision is made and enforced by military means without the participation of other political elements."

JHK adds:

This is true, and topics that are recognizable should be included as articles. BUT -- isn't this an encyclopedia? The last time I looked, and encyclopedia was a place where one could find introductory overviews and summaries of topics, much more than a dictionary, but less than journal articles and original research. Never have I seen an encyclopedia where the purpose was to co-opt old phrases into the sole (and solely defined by one user and/or his like-minded, one-track mind associates) purview of a particular group. Take, for example, military fiat -- the article should FIRST, describe the most common meaning and origins of the term, THEN (and only then) describe how that term has been co-opted by the new group (and given new interpretation). That's if this is really an encyclopedic article and not a dictionary definition!

The problem here is that 24 makes assertions that words mean what IT says they mean, and often denies that common usage is legitimate. The purpose of any encyclopedia should be to let people know what is GENERALLY meant and agreed-upon, and then other views or interpretations.

I do believe that 24 is harming the project - at the very least this person is causing unproductive angst among longtimes users. The actions of this person is probably also giving visitors and newbies the wrong idea about the project.

[...]

JHK says:

Probably true. It's wasting our time and energy, to say the least, and I think its antisocial attitudes are off-putting at best

I think it is time to warn 24 to cease many of the above activities.

Well, warn seems to imply an "or else". Or else what?

Unless his actions rise to the level of vandalism, I don't think we'd be wise to ban him. That would be a horrible precedent, I think. Very un-wiki.

I'd say that the only "or else" that's validly open to us is "or else we'll continue to edit the hell out of your articles until they are NPOV". There's a lot more of everyone else than him.

--Jimbo

JHK: I think you're right on one level -- banning is very extreme. However, I think we need to consider whether community standards and etiquette play any part. There have been lots of situations where peer pressure has helped to tone down disagreements between Wikipedians -- but even in cases where there was clear animosity, I've never seen it get so bad that the disputants wouldn't put common goals first (given encouragement ;-) ). With 24, we see a person who denies that there is a community, and therefore has no obligation to work within the standards we've set for ourselves. Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the goals of the project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be writing about. In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me", but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy. I'm all for peer pressure and heavy editing, but I just don't know if it will be effective against someone who considers us all less than his peers.

JHK

--__--__--

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@nupedia.com http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

End of Wikipedia-l Digest

_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com