Re: The userbox fad

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Michael Snow
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/5/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>While I'm generally in favor of broad latitude for user behavior,
>>there are some people who are simply net negatives, and it is in our
>>interest to get them to go away. I've come to steer away from most
>>of that kind of debating, because the encyclopedia benefits more
>>from me applying myself in areas where I have specialized skills,
>>knowledge, and reference sources. But sooner or later we're going
>>to have to develop better ways to filter out the unhelpful.
>>
>>Stan
>>    
>>
>You could always turn Wikipedia into an exclusive club that people can
>only get into if they can prove themselves worthy.
>
Hardly what he's suggesting. Filtering out the unhelpful means removing
people from the "club" after they've proven themselves unworthy, not
requiring them to prove worthiness before getting in at all. We already
do the former, but optimizing the filtering process is a bit challenging.

For similar reasons, we constantly struggle with the filtering process
currently known as "Articles for deletion". Since this one deals with
people even more directly, it should not be surprising that a happy
medium is difficult to find.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

jayjg
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> > Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 10:26
> > To: English Wikipedia
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> >
> > On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: [hidden email]
> > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> > > > Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:24
> > > > To: English Wikipedia
> > > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> > > >
> > > > On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay < [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: [hidden email]
> > > > > > [mailto: [hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> > > > >
> > > > > > > There are better social clubs available on the net. If
> > > > > > socialising is
> > > > > > > truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere
> > > > soon enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no social clubs available on the net with the
> > > > prestige of
> > > > > > Wikipedia.  It is a top 20 website.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that
> > > > there are 19
> > > > > more attractive ones?
> > > >
> > > > Not really, since the others don't allow people to do
> > this kind of
> > > > thing.
> > >
> > > Ah. So you see Wikipedia as a social club. A prestigious
> > social club.
>
> > Actually, I've been arguing the exact opposite.  Are you sure
> > you're reading my e-mails?
>
> You said: "There are no social clubs available on the net with the
> prestige
> of Wikipedia." That looks like a statement that Wikipedia is the most
> prestigious social club available on the net.


I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first introduced the concept
of Wikipedia as a social club, and suggested there were better ones around.

Are you all done playing games?

Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: The userbox fad

Peter Mackay
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg

> On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> > > Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 10:26
> > > To: English Wikipedia
> > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> > >
> > > On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: [hidden email]
> > > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:24
> > > > > To: English Wikipedia
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay < [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > [mailto: [hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of jayjg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are better social clubs available on the net. If
> > > > > > > socialising is
> > > > > > > > truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere
> > > > > soon enough.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are no social clubs available on the net with the
> > > > > prestige of
> > > > > > > Wikipedia.  It is a top 20 website.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that
> > > > > there are 19
> > > > > > more attractive ones?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really, since the others don't allow people to do
> > > this kind of
> > > > > thing.
> > > >
> > > > Ah. So you see Wikipedia as a social club. A prestigious
> > > social club.
> >
> > > Actually, I've been arguing the exact opposite.  Are you
> sure you're
> > > reading my e-mails?
> >
> > You said: "There are no social clubs available on the net with the
> > prestige of Wikipedia." That looks like a statement that
> Wikipedia is
> > the most prestigious social club available on the net.
>
> I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first
> introduced the concept of Wikipedia as a social club, and
> suggested there were better ones around.

Actually, that was Carbonite's phrase, not mine. I merely suggested that if
people came here for socialising, there were better places to go. You
responded, by appearing to disagree.

> Are you all done playing games?

Several posts ago, if you care to read back and check what I said. But I'm
not trying to get your goat, I'm trying to get your opinion, and it's hard
for me to pick it out.

There seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's community facilities, such as
user pages, Village Pump, this mailing list and so on. They all help editors
to co-operate, and a great many valuable editors take pleasure in dressing
up their user pages, letting other editors know something about themselves,
and personalising their own little space in a way that they can't do in
article space.

If all this stuff is provided and is widely used, then why start to attack
people for coming here and using it? Surely the problem is not that some
people are actually using the facilities provided, but rather that they are
not doing a real lot of work in article space, and to my mind we are not
going to have a great deal of success in forcing volunteers to work harder.
They will either leave entirely, depriving us of potential workers, or they
will respond in kind to the behaviour shown them by experienced editors who
should know better.

Is this plain common sense, or am I missing something here?

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: The userbox fad

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Michael Snow
On 1/5/06, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >On 1/5/06, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>While I'm generally in favor of broad latitude for user behavior,
> >>there are some people who are simply net negatives, and it is in our
> >>interest to get them to go away. I've come to steer away from most
> >>of that kind of debating, because the encyclopedia benefits more
> >>from me applying myself in areas where I have specialized skills,
> >>knowledge, and reference sources. But sooner or later we're going
> >>to have to develop better ways to filter out the unhelpful.
> >>
> >>Stan
> >>
> >>
> >You could always turn Wikipedia into an exclusive club that people can
> >only get into if they can prove themselves worthy.
> >
> Hardly what he's suggesting. Filtering out the unhelpful means removing
> people from the "club" after they've proven themselves unworthy, not
> requiring them to prove worthiness before getting in at all. We already
> do the former, but optimizing the filtering process is a bit challenging.
>
Eh, I never said he was suggesting anything, I was the one suggesting
that the process be taken to it's logical conclusion.  If you're gonna
do it, do it right.

If you're gonna filter out the unhelpful(*), you might as well
establish a process by which people gain membership.  Sure, there has
to be a provisional membership too, but after someone has been around
for a while you can decide whether or not they're worthy of full
membership.  The only reason I see *not* to do that is that Wikipedia
was supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone could edit.  But once
you've removed that, you might as well implement the same processes
that have been established by almost all the other exclusive clubs.

Frankly, I don't think it's such a bad idea, if you could somehow pull
the wool over the eyes of the editors who would strongly oppose it.

(*) And the implication was that this doesn't just mean people who are
*intentionally* unhelpful, as Stan was also talking about those "who
are simply not smart enough to be of
any help" in the previous paragraph.

> For similar reasons, we constantly struggle with the filtering process
> currently known as "Articles for deletion". Since this one deals with
> people even more directly, it should not be surprising that a happy
> medium is difficult to find.
>
> --Michael Snow

Keeping an article out of Wikipedia is completely different from
keeping a group of people out.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Sam Spade
In reply to this post by Peter Mackay
When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal
of the project.

Jay.

This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I
assume you did not mean this.

Sam Spade
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Michael Snow
In reply to this post by Michael Snow
jayjg wrote:

>On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>>From: [hidden email]
>>>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
>>>Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 10:26
>>>To: English Wikipedia
>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
>>>
>>>On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>From: [hidden email]
>>>>>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
>>>>>Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 09:24
>>>>>To: English Wikipedia
>>>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
>>>>>
>>>>>On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>From: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>[mailto: [hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are better social clubs available on the net. If socialising is
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>truly their main interest, then they'll go elsewhere soon enough.
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are no social clubs available on the net with the prestige of
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wikipedia.  It is a top 20 website.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Surely, using your own definition, that would mean that there are 19
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>more attractive ones?
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not really, since the others don't allow people to do this kind of thing.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Ah. So you see Wikipedia as a social club. A prestigious social club.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Actually, I've been arguing the exact opposite.  Are you sure
>>>you're reading my e-mails?
>>>      
>>>
>>You said: "There are no social clubs available on the net with the
>>prestige
>>of Wikipedia." That looks like a statement that Wikipedia is the most
>>prestigious social club available on the net.
>>    
>>
>I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first introduced the concept
>of Wikipedia as a social club, and suggested there were better ones around.
>
>Are you all done playing games?
>  
>
I'm not suggesting the word-twisting should continue, but this entire
discussion seems to have been carried on in ignorance of the fact that
there is, in fact, a better alternative for people who choose their
online communities based purely on the amount of traffic they get.
MySpace currently ranks 13th according to Alexa, still quite a few spots
ahead of Wikipedia. I'm not sure that prestigious is the word you're
looking for (your average pundit would probably resort to the tried and
true "hip"), but whatever it is they've got, it was worth $580 million
to Rupert Murdoch.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

jayjg
In reply to this post by Peter Mackay
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >
> > I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first
> > introduced the concept of Wikipedia as a social club, and
> > suggested there were better ones around.
>
> Actually, that was Carbonite's phrase, not mine. I merely suggested that
> if
> people came here for socialising, there were better places to go. You
> responded, by appearing to disagree.


As was quite obvious, I explained why they might prefer to socialize on
Wikipedia, rather than on those other places.

There seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's community facilities, such as

> user pages, Village Pump, this mailing list and so on. They all help
> editors
> to co-operate, and a great many valuable editors take pleasure in dressing
> up their user pages, letting other editors know something about
> themselves,
> and personalising their own little space in a way that they can't do in
> article space.
>
> If all this stuff is provided and is widely used, then why start to attack
> people for coming here and using it? Surely the problem is not that some
> people are actually using the facilities provided, but rather that they
> are
> not doing a real lot of work in article space, and to my mind we are not
> going to have a great deal of success in forcing volunteers to work
> harder.
> They will either leave entirely, depriving us of potential workers, or
> they
> will respond in kind to the behaviour shown them by experienced editors
> who
> should know better.
>
> Is this plain common sense, or am I missing something here?


If they are here to build a great encyclopedia, and the social aspects of
Wikipedia assist in that, then that's great.  The issue I'm raising regards
the many editors who seem to have no interest in actually building the
encyclopedia itself, and instead focus their efforts almost entirely on
using the social and "webhosting" facilities that are, in reality, here only
to assist Wikipedia in its primary purpose.

Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

jayjg
In reply to this post by Sam Spade
On 1/6/06, Sam Spade <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
> something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
> and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the
> goal
> of the project.
>
> Jay.
>
> This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
> the wikipedia.


Jack, you've been on Wikipedia for how many years now?  I'm going to have to
assume this is hyperbole.

Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Re: The userbox fad

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Michael Snow
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Snow

> I'm not suggesting the word-twisting should continue, but
> this entire discussion seems to have been carried on in
> ignorance of the fact that there is, in fact, a better
> alternative for people who choose their online communities
> based purely on the amount of traffic they get.
> MySpace currently ranks 13th according to Alexa, still quite
> a few spots ahead of Wikipedia. I'm not sure that prestigious
> is the word you're looking for (your average pundit would
> probably resort to the tried and true "hip"), but whatever it
> is they've got, it was worth $580 million to Rupert Murdoch.

Aha! Here we have the solution to Wikipedia's funding problems.

Thanks for that, Michael - I'm not "au lait" with the hip sites. In terms of
culture, I'm still struggling with the Eighties. Where did it all go wrong?

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: The userbox fad

Jay Converse
On 1/6/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
>
> > I'm not suggesting the word-twisting should continue, but
> > this entire discussion seems to have been carried on in
> > ignorance of the fact that there is, in fact, a better
> > alternative for people who choose their online communities
> > based purely on the amount of traffic they get.
> > MySpace currently ranks 13th according to Alexa, still quite
> > a few spots ahead of Wikipedia. I'm not sure that prestigious
> > is the word you're looking for (your average pundit would
> > probably resort to the tried and true "hip"), but whatever it
> > is they've got, it was worth $580 million to Rupert Murdoch.
>
> Aha! Here we have the solution to Wikipedia's funding problems.
>
> Thanks for that, Michael - I'm not "au lait" with the hip sites. In terms
> of
> culture, I'm still struggling with the Eighties. Where did it all go
> wrong?
>
> Peter (Skyring)
>
>
Somewhere between dayglo clothing and Van Halen.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: The userbox fad

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by jayjg
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of jayjg
> Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2006 03:00
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
>
> On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I was responding to *your* e-mail, in which you first
> introduced the
> > > concept of Wikipedia as a social club, and suggested there were
> > > better ones around.
> >
> > Actually, that was Carbonite's phrase, not mine. I merely suggested
> > that if people came here for socialising, there were better
> places to
> > go. You responded, by appearing to disagree.
>
> As was quite obvious, I explained why they might prefer to
> socialize on Wikipedia, rather than on those other places.

Because it's "prestigious". Hmmm. What about MySpace?

> There seems to be a problem with Wikipedia's community
> facilities, such as
> > user pages, Village Pump, this mailing list and so on. They
> all help
> > editors to co-operate, and a great many valuable editors
> take pleasure
> > in dressing up their user pages, letting other editors know
> something
> > about themselves, and personalising their own little space in a way
> > that they can't do in article space.
> >
> > If all this stuff is provided and is widely used, then why start to
> > attack people for coming here and using it? Surely the
> problem is not
> > that some people are actually using the facilities provided, but
> > rather that they are not doing a real lot of work in article space,
> > and to my mind we are not going to have a great deal of success in
> > forcing volunteers to work harder.
> > They will either leave entirely, depriving us of potential
> workers, or
> > they will respond in kind to the behaviour shown them by
> experienced
> > editors who should know better.
> >
> > Is this plain common sense, or am I missing something here?
>
>
> If they are here to build a great encyclopedia, and the
> social aspects of Wikipedia assist in that, then that's
> great.  The issue I'm raising regards the many editors who
> seem to have no interest in actually building the
> encyclopedia itself, and instead focus their efforts almost
> entirely on using the social and "webhosting" facilities that
> are, in reality, here only to assist Wikipedia in its primary purpose.

And the point I'm making is that it is counterproductive and unjust to
chastise them for using the community facilities provided, especially when
it seems that some of them are enjoying themselves in tweaking the noses of
the curmudgeons. Instead we should be encouraging them to be more productive
in our primary purpose.

We aren't going to do that by ridiculing them and driving them away.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Michael Snow
Tony Sidaway wrote:

> On 1/4/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Have you examined the figures?   This is a massive growth.  Political
>>and belief-based userboxes have increased tenfold since the end of
>>November.  A database check tells me that of our 3500 or so userboxes,
>>1500 were created in December, and a further 250 have been created in
>>the first three days of January alone.
>
>
> Kelly informs me that a large amount of the apparent growth in
> December can be accounted for by cut-and-paste moves of userbox
> templates as they were renamed.  Apparently the userbox people were
> unaware of the fact that a moved template gets a redirect, thus
> preserving the user pages including it.
>
Can you please point them to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages so they
don't do it again?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (568 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Sam Spade
> When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
> something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
> and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the
> goal
> of the project.
>
> Jay.
>
> This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
> the wikipedia.


you've been on Wikipedia for how many years now?  I'm going to have to
assume this is hyperbole.

Jay.

Please re-read what you wrote instead.

Also, I stopped using my name / providing personal details on this
project after a particularly offensive statement was made on this list
regarding my step-son. I have realised there are too many bad people
here, and too few measures taken against them for me to feel
comfortable or safe being less than anonymous. Nothing personal, but
please refer to me by my user name. Thanks,

Sam Spade
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Rob Smith-3
*Jay Converse*  said

a new editor come in and join a discussion with old editors can provide a
fresh point of view..."

Since Wikipedia has an aversion to becoming "rule bound", of course
personality is going to win out over process & policies; hence the
"ideological cliques".  And most users don't know beans about the ideology
they've inherited, they just mime others who profess to have some
understanding.

nobs
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Jay Converse
On 1/7/06, Rob Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> *Jay Converse*  said
>
> a new editor come in and join a discussion with old editors can provide a
> fresh point of view..."
>
> Since Wikipedia has an aversion to becoming "rule bound", of course
> personality is going to win out over process & policies; hence the
> "ideological cliques".  And most users don't know beans about the ideology
> they've inherited, they just mime others who profess to have some
> understanding.
>
> nobs
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Well, in that case, new editors can shift the clique balance of power, to
keep on using that line of thought.  Either way, I think the goal should be
to attract new users to help shape the site rather than kicking people out.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Sam Spade
> Well, in that case, new editors can shift the clique balance of power, to
> keep on using that line of thought.  Either way, I think the goal should be
> to attract new users to help shape the site rather than kicking people out.
>
> --
> I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

Or making them feel so unhappy and powerless that they leave.

Sam Spade
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Sam Spade
On 06/01/06, Sam Spade <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
>> something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
>> and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal
>> of the project.
>
> This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
> the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I
> assume you did not mean this.

I think I broadly understand the intended meaning.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite, bedrock; that we
write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and
not an academic journal or discussion board.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus;
our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on
What Dialect Of English To Use.

Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable;
that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection
policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or
obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.

And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence
confusion like this.

So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy.
Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him,
whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And
he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.

But if he's going to argue over whether we're an encyclopedia, or
whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with
"gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this
debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one
persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good
at doing so.

(Indeed, on things like NPOV, we wouldn't change if one _city_ of
persuasive people came along. You get the idea.)

It is good to discuss things. But discussing something that cannot and
will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time.
I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit
tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.

Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have been
wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English
English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing
with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing
anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I
was one)

Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone. Arguing over
something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can
certainly be helpful.

I hope that's the point Jay meant to make, and I hope if so it seems clearer...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Sam Spade
On 1/7/06, Sam Spade <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > Well, in that case, new editors can shift the clique balance of power,
> to
> > keep on using that line of thought.  Either way, I think the goal should
> be
> > to attract new users to help shape the site rather than kicking people
> out.
> >
> > --
> > I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
>
> Or making them feel so unhappy and powerless that they leave.
>
> Sam Spade
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

That's worse, in my opinion.  [[WP:NOT]] a high school.

--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The userbox fad

Sam Spade
On 06/01/06, Sam Spade <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
>> something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
>> and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal
>> of the project.
>
> This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
> the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I
> assume you did not mean this.

I think I broadly understand the intended meaning.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite, bedrock; that we
write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and
not an academic journal or discussion board.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus;
our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on
What Dialect Of English To Use.

Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable;
that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection
policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or
obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.

And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence
confusion like this.

So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy.
Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him,
whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And
he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.

But if he's going to argue over whether we're an encyclopedia, or
whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with
"gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this
debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one
persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good
at doing so.

(Indeed, on things like NPOV, we wouldn't change if one _city_ of
persuasive people came along. You get the idea.)

It is good to discuss things. But discussing something that cannot and
will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time.
I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit
tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.

Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have been
wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English
English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing
with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing
anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I
was one)

Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone. Arguing over
something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can
certainly be helpful.

I hope that's the point Jay meant to make, and I hope if so it seems clearer...

--
- Andrew Gray

I like the way you put things far better, but I'd rather see the nubie
complain about NPOV, have it explained to him, and learn about the
foundation issues. Thats not what were talking about tho, were talking
about userboxes, and thats a subject newcomers can and should discuss.
We arn't going to compromise on the important stuff, but I dare say we
have some room for compromise on the userbox issue.

The meta issue here is mentorship vrs. newbie biting, and I fear too
much of the latter and far too little of the former are occuring.

Sam Spade
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: The userbox fad

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray

> Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone.
> Arguing over something we are willing to change, from a new
> viewpoint? Can certainly be helpful.

But how does a new editor know the difference between policy, policy and
policy? He needs to be set straight on the important things, but I can't see
any way of doing that without some sort of discussion.

Sure, whoever does the setting straight is going to be taking time out from
other things, but if we don't educate new editors, then how can we progress?
I would rather see new users educated cheerfully, respectfully and
intelligently, rather than told what's what in a curt, dictatorial fashion
by someone who sees it as an imposition on his valuable time.

Peter (Skyring)


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12