[WikiEN-l] Don't template the newbies either

[Giggy]

4im is a big problem here, because the criteria for it is certainly
lowering.  You see people dishing out 4im for even very minor things these
days, which isn't nice for the receiver.

So, to start off another topic, what are other people's criteria for dishing
out a 4im? ~Giggy

On 7/10/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> William Pietri wrote:
> > Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> >> For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the
> >> person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and
> > then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
> >
> > I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these
> > days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to
> > keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that
> > it's bad.
> >
> > I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small
> > business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail
> > package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after
> > warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have
> > spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that
> > seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
> >
> >
> >> You don't
> >> like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will
> >> get them blocked and just block them without warning?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is
> > Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
> >
> >
> >> Not being very friendly to spammers and
> >> vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It depends on how you count the costs.
> >
> > I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of
> > those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will
> > decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what
> > the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take
> > it out on their dogs.
> >
> > On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that
> > is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something
> > foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've
> > edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they
> > shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll
> > even join us in tidying things up.
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> That could be, but really, I think the templates serve that purpose fine
> if used properly. Here's spam1:
>
> Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did
> in Article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article>. Wikipedia is not a
> mere directory of links
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory
> >
> nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links
> include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to
> web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract
> visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links
> guideline <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links> and
> spam policies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam> for further
> explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the
> link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the
> article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers> to learn
> more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
>
> That seems me to convey a clear message that we don't want spam, but
> also serves to educate. Its tone certainly looks to me more like "Hey,
> we don't allow this here, please don't do that" then "Knock it off you
> ($%*(#ing moron!"
>
> There is a problem with people skipping directly to 3 or 4 level
> warnings too quickly, which are much harsher in tone and are intended
> for people who have ignored gentler warnings, and intended to convey
> "Hey, we asked nicely, now stop it or out comes the banhammer." I'll
> only give a 3 or 4 immediately in extreme, egregious cases. Often, a
> test1, spam1, or whatever, is all it takes to get someone to stop.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>