On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Feb 27, 2006, at 7:41 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Should Wikipedia provide an official-looking template? I don't think so.
And just what is the basis for that crabbed view?
I'd hardly call it "crabbed". Wikipedia isn't a football site and it isn't really intended to be used to promote rivalry between football fans, nor would it be in our interests to do so. Templates used in this manner give the false impression that it is, and also draw focus away from the encyclopedia and onto external issues.
As there is nothing that can be included on a template that an editor cannot say much better in his own words, the *only* reasons for using a template instead would be for social networking on the basis of shared interests. Such shared interests should be justifiable on the basis of utility to Wikipedia. Where knowledge of a language and interest in football may be justifiable, partisanship such as football teams, political parties and beliefs, don't serve that purpose at all. All that a "Manchester United fan" template tells you is that its owner prefer that team to others.
Would we permit a WikiProject with membership restricted to Manchester United fans, socialists, vegetarians, muslims or Roman Catholics? Looking at WikiProject Islam and its associated projects I see that they are very careful not to exclude non-Muslims from membership. The Judaism and Christianity projects are the same.
Using userbox templates, people with partisan interests can bypass this restriction, and the Catholic Alliance deletion debate showed just how effectively this can be used to disrupt Wikipedia. Nearly every single person in that debate who voted to keep the page did so after the page's creator spammed his talk page with a plea to vote to keep the page.
If the neutrality policy is to remain our cornerstone, we must avoid giving the impression that it doesn't really mean anything.