[WikiEN-l] BJAODN: a proposal

Thu Jun 7 00:24:36 UTC 2007

BJAODN is best left deleted or moved to another part of
Wikiality where the admins that enjoy it can take ownership
of it and decide how to handle it.  Things like this and
other [[WP:OR]]/creative writing is what wikia and
wikibooks are for.

I don't see how the idea that you have yet another page in
the main namespace that you have to comb through for bombs,
spam, and astroturfing is relaxing and morale building.

--- phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/3/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Guy Chapman aka JzG schreef:
> > > > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar"
> > > > <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> You think.  Me, I think it might have been
> exactly as stated: OK,
> > > > >> let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
> > > >
> > > > Or possibly per the reason stated.
> > >
> > > No, apart from [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], [[WP:BLP]],
> [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:FU]] and
> > > [[WP:NOT]], there was not a single reason for
> deletion of these pages,
> > > and it's a scandal that they have not been undeleted
> already.
> >
> > The failure to recognize that  BJAODN deliberately
> violates the norms of
> > the
> > rest of Wikipedia in order to make the culture
> healthier and the
> > encyclopedia better (similar to how people can
> experiment in the Sandbox,
> > but not the mainspace) is extraordinarily
> disappointing.
> >
> > It's called Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense for a
> reason.
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ----
> In general, in comment on all the comments about BJAODN:
> 
> Any example of how a part of BJAODN violated the GFDL can
> be refuted with
> another part that doesn't violate the GFDL.
> 
> For every non-funny joke, there was one that had me in
> stitches, and
> probably you too.
> 
> For every dozen puerile misuses and 1/2 page cut there
> was -- if you looked
> hard enough -- something that would make you laugh, and
> you'd realize you
> were laughing because it was a joke about Wikipedia and
> you were a
> Wikipedian, and that is a good feeling.
> 
> No argument about how it was "a massive waste of time" or
> "a complete
> copyright violation" or "it was great through and
> through" or anything
> similarly broad and undiscriminating is going to fly in
> the face of a group
> of pages that were nearly six years old and incredibly
> diverse.
> 
> So: in the interests of not sitting through more
> copyright arguments and
> more deletion procedural arguments -- remember, every
> time you quote an
> acronym God kills a kitten -- let's get back to basics.
> 
> I'd like to propose leaving the old BJAODN pages alone
> for the moment --
> recognizing that they are (hopefully) preserved in a dump
> and the deletion
> logs for the dedicated and foolhardy to sort through,
> remove the funniest
> bits for a future archive and credit if necessary. Anyone
> who wants to
> figure out how to make these available for non-admins to
> work on I'm sure
> would be welcomed, and hopefully the pages won't
> completely die by being
> left alone. If others want to fight to get them
> undeleted, or act boldly to
> undelete, my bias is that this would be a good thing, but
> doing so
> immediately and unilaterally will just cause further
> drama.
> 
> In line with this, I would love to see a discussion about
> keeping or
> deleting the pages with the participation of many more
> experienced
> Wikipedians and those familiar with the GFDL; there have
> only been a few
> loud voices so far, and while not a "crucial" page,
> BJAODN is a page that
> predates most of the policies and 90% of the content on
> this site. Thus I
> feel sure that many people beyond the people who have
> spoken up so far have
> opinions and strong feelings on it.
> 
> I'd also like to propose a new BJAODN page -- BJAODN for
> the 21st century --
> that could come into being over time, where we work out a
> way to keep a
> small portion of the funny stuff; perhaps equitable basic
> policies for
> quoting pages, removing any hint of BLPs or attacks, and
> only quoting
> fair-use sized chunks of deleted pages. Yes, it's not
> encyclopedic; but yes,
> there is always going to be an urge to share that
> All-Time Best Vandalism
> Evar that had you cracked up for 20 minutes with your
> friends. I've had that
> urge; so has everyone who's ever added to BJAODN. How do
> we make a place for
> this? [1]
> 
> Lastly, I would love to see a discussion of whether this
> was appropriate
> behavior by the deleting admin -- he's gotten praised by
> some and abused by
> others. Does this sort of thing fall within being bold?
> Is this unilateral
> behavior desirable? Something to encourage or revile?
> Let's leave aside
> current policy about speedies, copyvios etc and think
> about what we *want*.
> 
> Finally, three challenges. First, I'd like to challenge
> those who care about
> it to improve the existing BJAODN page, maybe giving a
> short explanation of
> this phenomena -- especially for the sake of the many,
> many incoming links
> -- and showcasing some of the early diffs, which are
> pretty funny. It would
> also be great if an admin could retrieve the page titles
> of the various
> BJAODN collections, and post them as a reminder of what
> we had.
> 
> Second, I'd like to challenge everyone who is arguing
> about copyright on
> this mailing list to take the amount of time you've spent
> sending emails,
> double it, and spend that amount of time checking
> articles and new
> contributions for copyvios from material in the outside
> world. I guarantee
> you'll find a few, and this is a MUCH bigger problem than
> BJAODN ever was.
> 
> Thirdly, for everyone who thought that the collection of
> jokes wasn't funny
> or encyclopedic and therefore should go: a challenge to
> remember that good
> faith and tolerance of a lot of random crap is what makes
> any of us put up
> with this website at all. While no one is more
> self-righteous about making
> this a serious encyclopedia than me, we're talking about
> 60-odd pages out of
> 7,000,000, and things like BJAODN are like amateur comedy
> hour, or karaoke
> -- you may not like it, and it may be painful to listen
> to, but that doesn't
> mean you have to go on a crusade against every karaoke
> bar in the city and
> get a court order to shut them all down.[2]
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> phoebe
> 
> [1] The last thing I added to BJAODN *still* makes me
> laugh when I think
> about it.
> [2] though if you do, I won't stop you; I can't stand the
> stuff.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick 
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 