[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a cult

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Todd,

(Strewth, it was interesting trying to work out who said what in the 
mish-mash of quotes here)

> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest at gmail.com wrote:
>>>     
>> Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this
>> thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters
>> :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a
>> topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will
>> become serious - with some serious, positive results.
>>   
> And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the
> pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't
> already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be
> summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to
> talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members,
> being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are
> "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual
> does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD

You had me at "Hello" ...

> I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another
> five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head
> in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that
> article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the
> whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)

... and then lost me again.

Back In The Day, Wikiproject Australia kept tabs on Articles for 
Deletion, watching for clueless Americans.  And believe me, there were 
*plenty* on offer.  Some famous Australian (lead yodeller for the 
Flaming Hairnets, say) was on the verge of being deleted because a 
dickhead in his parents' basement in Iowa had never heard of him or, 
indeed, anyone who wasn't from Iowa.  Alternatively, some Australian 
hoaxer was about to be kept because a wide-awake (but not wide-awake 
*enough*) American said, "Stop!  It says he's the King of New South 
Wales, and that sounds pretty notable to me."

Wikiproject participants getting involved in AfD doesn't lead to 
vote-stacking (a meaningless phrase to the Clueful, anyway).  What it 
generally means is that editors who actually know what they're talking 
about get a dekko at the article and AfD discussion.  This is a Good 
Thing.  It should *not* be discouraged.

Of course, it's up to the relevant Wikiproject to watch AfD.  We 
shouldn't go extending processes because nobody from a Wikiproject had a 
relevant article on their watchlist.

> This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all
> reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it
> certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens
> all too often.

No, it doesn't.

If you improved an article on, say, dihydrogen monoxide (the silent 
killer!), and got reverted, and a Wikiproject Chemistry member said, "If 
you want to edit here you have to join the Wikiproject", that's one 
thing (it would also make a pretty cool movie, especially if you got 
Robert De Niro  to play the Chemistry project heavyweight).

If, on the other hand, you nominated an article on dihydrogen monoxide 
for deletion ("Never heard of it, probably nn.  No conceivable use IRL. 
  Probably a hoax by those Wikiproject Chemistry wankers.  My vote is 
'''strong speedy delete with cherries on top'''.  ~~~~"), and 
Wikiproject Chemistry people flooded the AfD with big muscly smart 
people, that would not be a Bad Thing.  It would, in fact, be a Good Thing.

<snip/>


Cheers,

-- 
Mark Gallagher
0439 704 975
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten 
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/