[WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

[Ryan Delaney]

On 1/4/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There have actually been attempts to pass such laws, and in some cases
> they've even been passed.  Such laws are unconstitutional in the
> United States, however, and so they don't last.
>
> Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, however, and does not have to
> worry about restrictions on advertisement, personal promotion, etc.
> being found unconstitutional.


This isn't a question of constitutionality. It's a question of, I don't
know, respect? This thing seems a lot to me like the Wikipedia Chess
Championship (which I note at least one Arb is playing in), which was also
VfD'd on the grounds that it had nothing to do with building an
encyclopedia. That VFD failed, incidentally, on the grounds that the project
wasn't hurting anything and it was a fun way for users to cool their heels.
Userboxes are like that- and you might have gotten the same kind of useful
discussion, if you had bothered to discuss it with others before making your
decision that the userboxes must die. (Is this an example of IAR gone too
far?)


On 1/4/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about the user boxes, Ryan, I'm talking about users
> who treat Wikipedia as a social club and not an encyclopedia. The
> user-box issue is the first time I've seen some of them act en masse.
> My point was that I'm glad we've seen it over a relatively minor issue
> (though I feel bad for the targets of it), because it might prompt
> some action before it gets to the point where they're dictating
> policy. Just because some of the user-box editors, if I can call them
> that, make few edits to the encyclopedia doesn't mean none do, or even
> that most don't, obviously.
>


If that's the case, then the problem is the users, not the userboxes. If you
have examples of people who use Wikipedia as *nothing* but another sort of
"Myspace", then I think they ought to be kindly escorted off the project.
But as it happens, I've witnessed nothing of this phenomenon you are
describing, and I strongly suspect this is another incidence of someone
thinking "It seems to me this could cause a problem, so I will react to it
as if that problem is actually occurring", with or without actual evidence.

And even if you're right, and there is an underground community of people
who use Wikipedia for no constructive purpose, this is very far from the
best way of dealing with them. In deleting these userboxes, you've alienated
a lot of legitimate users, including people who never used the userboxes
anyway.


But all that is really beside the point. That there is even a debate about
this is somewhat exasperating to me. Is this really worth it? Wouldn't it be
better to admit that Wikipedia is imperfect but that trying to win every
battle will just drain everyone of all their energy? Most of the people
you're fighting against are good folk who belong here, and want to have a
little toy to play with in the mean time. Instead of reading this email, you
could be, I don't know, reverting vandalism, or doing fact-checking in
existing articles. Which is more helpful to Wikipedia?

Ryan