[Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts

Mon Apr 8 17:00:31 UTC 2002

From: "Guardian Tor " <guardian-tor at operamail.com>
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:09:46 +0900
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Our latest guest
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com

Well now, someone seems to be ever-so-slightly pissed at me. ;-)

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Response_to_Stephen_Gilbert

- Stephen G.

OH MY!!!!  Sorry Stephen, but if 24 weren't clearly on the loony fringe,
this would be funny.   Speaking of which, I really do wonder where it
lives and if it's loony enough to seek out those of us nearby.

JHK

________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:34:56 -0700
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] 24 is driving me nuts
Reply-To: wikipedia-l at nupedia.com

Is 24 aware of the existence of this mailing list?  The mailing list
format is much better for discussing these meta-issues.

JHK writes:  
Perhaps, but it seems to want to preserve its anonymity... And I'd
rather read less of his crap than more.

Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> 24 also created [[wikipedia:Natural Point of View]] as some type of
> replacement of NPOV,

I'll have to read this, but NPOV is non-negotiable.  So long as stuff
like this is on the meta wikipedia, that's fine, though.  He's entitled
to his opinions, and we're entitled to ignore him or learn from him, as
may be appropriate.

JHK writes:  

Fine in theory, but his Natural POV permeates everything he writes -- of
which there is far too much, IMHO

> makes other articles that are improperly capitalized,
> such as [[Green Movement]], after he/she is made aware of naming
conventions, 
> he/she also makes improperly pluralized pages such as [[Eco-villages]]

> knowing about that policy etc.,  etc., etc., etc.

Improper capitalization is bad.

> An analogy, would be a news agency that is more concerned with making 
> news
> than reporting it. Should wikipedia become a place where crackpots can
air 
> their views and gain unwarranted exposure? Should we be in the
business of 
> legitimizing terms and definitions that Google can only find a small
handfull 
> of examples of? Do we want wikpedia to become a soapbox?

I would say "no", "yes" and "no".  :-)  Let me explain.

Let's say there is a term -- "military fiat" which is not widely used,
but which does have a fairly consistent usage when it is used.  Then,
our article on it should describe what the term means, and who uses it
that way.

The particular article, [[Military fiat]] is pretty bad currently, but I
don't think that the existence of the article is problematic.  A quick
search of google reveals that "military fiat" is not a common
expression, but when it is used, it does mean "a process whereby a
decision is made and enforced by military means without the
participation of other political elements."

JHK adds:

This is true, and topics that are recognizable should be included as
articles.  BUT -- isn't this an encyclopedia?  The last time I looked,
and encyclopedia was a place where one could find introductory overviews
and summaries of topics, much more than a dictionary, but less than
journal articles and original research.  Never have I seen an
encyclopedia where the purpose was to co-opt old phrases into the sole
(and solely defined by one user and/or his like-minded, one-track mind
associates) purview of a particular group.  Take, for example, military
fiat -- the article should FIRST, describe the most common meaning and
origins of the term, THEN (and only then) describe how that term has
been co-opted by the new group (and given new interpretation).  That's
if this is really an encyclopedic article and not a dictionary
definition!

The problem here is that 24 makes assertions that words mean what IT
says they mean, and often denies that common usage is legitimate.  The
purpose of any encyclopedia should be to let people know what is
GENERALLY meant and agreed-upon, and then other views or
interpretations.  

> I do believe that 24 is harming the project - at the very least this 
> person is causing unproductive angst among longtimes users. The 
> actions of this person is probably also giving visitors and newbies 
> the wrong idea about the project.

[...]

JHK says:

Probably true.  It's wasting our time and energy, to say the least, and
I think its antisocial attitudes are off-putting at best

> I think it is time to warn 24 to cease many of the above activities.

Well, warn seems to imply an "or else".  Or else what?

Unless his actions rise to the level of vandalism, I don't think we'd be
wise to ban him.  That would be a horrible precedent, I think. Very
un-wiki.

I'd say that the only "or else" that's validly open to us is "or else
we'll continue to edit the hell out of your articles until they are
NPOV".  There's a lot more of everyone else than him.

--Jimbo

JHK:
I think you're right on one level -- banning is very extreme.  However,
I think we need to consider whether community standards and etiquette
play any part.  There have been lots of situations where peer pressure
has helped to tone down disagreements between Wikipedians -- but even in
cases where there was clear animosity, I've never seen it get so bad
that the disputants wouldn't put common goals first (given encouragement
;-) ).  With 24, we see a person who denies that there is a community,
and therefore has no obligation to work within the standards we've set
for ourselves.  Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the goals of the
project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be
writing about.  In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating
tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
standpoint.   Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.  I'm
all for peer pressure and heavy editing, but I just don't know if it
will be effective against someone who considers us all less than his
peers.

JHK

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at nupedia.com
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

End of Wikipedia-l Digest

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com