[WikiEN-l] More editing of user pages, please (was Arbcom has completely lost its mind)

[David Gerard]

Mindspillage wrote:

>I don't think setting down hard guidelines as to what is and is not
>acceptable is sufficient; it invites ruleslawyering. I don't advocate
>disruptive editing of user pages, such as changing the text someone
>has written to make it untrue, and I don't think anyone else is
>either. But the current culture is such that many people think no one
>else should be allowed to touch your user page, even if you have on it
>material which is disruptive, offensive, or otherwise generally not
>acceptable to the rest of the community.


I find it hard to see why people would need more in the way of a
guideline than the relevant paragraph from [[WP:NOT]]:

"*User pages.* Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are
used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you
are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one
of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages
should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for
effective collaboration."

So let's run userboxes past that test.

* Babel boxes: yep.
* Location boxes: yep.
* Nationality boxes: probably. (I live in the UK but I can give an
Australian perspective, at least as of 2002.)
* Firefox/Opera/IE boxes: possibly (good for browser issues).
* "du-1:his user does not wish to speak or hear *dumbass*, but is
resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an
environment of massive collaboration." - probably not as a template,
which is why the one on my page is substed. But I put it there as a
restatement of what I say a lot, that on Wikipedia working effectively
with people you think are complete idiots is *not optional*.
* "This user is a critic of Scientology." I probably wouldn't use this
myself. It indicates an area of knowledge but also indicates a strong
POV in a way that may unduly alienate other editors.
* "This user is Catholic." I don't think this passes the test. It
states a POV but doesn't actually indicate a depth of knowledge.
* "This user is a Jesuit priest." This might be useful - indicates a
depth of knowledge as well as a belief - but would probably go better
in article text.
* "This user is a pedophile" - um, no.


- d.