[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a cult

[Todd Allen]

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> 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,
>
>   
I think we're saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways. :)

I would expect that some Wikiproject members probably have an article on
their area of interest on their watchlist and will comment on a deletion
discussion for it. It would be good if they do, since they may have
insights to offer to the discussion that others may lack.

On the other hand, some Wikiprojects do aggressively canvass. I'm
reminded of HIGHWAYS sending out their first (and as far as I know only)
"newsletter" to all their members, asking them to "protect the safety of
highway articles" or something like that, when a few questionable ones
were up for AfD. Numerical consensus is a factor at AfD, even if it's
not the only one, and taking deliberate steps to skew that isn't acceptable.

However, the main problem remains the OWNership issue in general. It
happens a lot more often than I imagine most would like to think, and
I've sure seen more references to "my article" than I would like to. I
think it's something we need to start taking more aggressive action
against, even if the OWNers aren't technically violating 3RR (since they
tandem-revert and usually quickly drive off anyone who comes along).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070625/3d5bd21a/attachment.pgp