Wikipedia's destiny

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
226 messages Options
1 ... 89101112
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Block-3
Snowspinner wrote:

> Has the webcomics community developed a sufficient non-promotional  
> body of thought to be taken seriously in its self-assessment of what  
> its important parts are?
>
> Between the Examiner, the academic attention, the division of the  
> community into profitable syndicates, and people like Eric Burns, the  
> answer is, frankly, an unequivocal yes.

See, I agree with the above.  Each is a source that can be utilised in
it's own way.  I'd add the published comics press, like The Journal,
which reviews webcomics to the list, and note that newspapers reprint
and review some of the strips too.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:
> I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source  
> which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it  
> is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,  
> blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative  
> is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of  
> the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and  
> unscholarly.

There's actually enough sources out there on webcomics that we shouldn't
need to go to blogs to source statements.  There's ImageText for
starters, The Comics Jouanal, IJOCA, Journal of Popular Culture should
have stuff in them, check the comics research bibliography,
http://rpi.edu/~bulloj/comxbib.html - Sabin's written on comics on the
web for example, or a quick ask on the comics scholars mailing list
could probably turn you up quite a few more sources.

Steve block


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Block-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> Tony Sidaway wrote:
>> On 2/27/06, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>>>  But given Burns' writing on webcomics is
>>> online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted
>>> claim to expertness.
>
>> "Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of
>> published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games,
>> magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an
>> occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own
>> comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
>> I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in
>> English Literature.  He worked on games and publications for Steve
>> Jackson Games.  So he has a lot more qualifications to write about
>> writing than just being a blogger.
>
>
> * d, nn, never heard of him myself, webcomics aren't encyclopedic,
> here's some tortured justifications that I think sound better - ~~~~

Assuming that's directed at me, then I'm not sure what the statement
"webcomics aren't encyclopedic" is meant to mean.  I've never argued
such, in fact I've argued the exact opposite.  I've even cited sources
which I hold to be better than Burns' blog, either peer reviewed
journals or reputable print based publications which employ fact
checkers and publish corrections and retractions.  Still, I'm interested
in hearing the tortured justifications you present for continuing to
attack me.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Baba Jobu
I don't know about all that, but it does seem like awful powerful proof
that Elvis is still alive. :-)
Ec

Baba Jobu wrote:

>Oh, you're just showing off! ;-)
>
>But well, yes, because both you and Elvis Presley are hugely notable.
>161,000 doesn't put you at the Olympian heights of a Wales or a Presley, but
>it's solid memedom, I'd say.
>
>On 2/24/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Andrew Lih wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for "brian peppers". (0.05 seconds)
>>>
>>>Results 1 - 10 of about 154,000 for "Stan Shebs". (0.03 seconds)
>>>
>>>Let's cut the ridiculousness of this Google testing track.
>>>      
>>>
>>"jimmy wales" - 36,500,000
>>"elvis presley" - 14,400,000
>>
>>it's pretty silly
>>

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Phil Boswell
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
> them...

The user you're referencing has only been on the site since Feb 1 and
has under 50 edits, almost all of which are attempts to get the
webcomics article in question deleted.  If genuinely a new user, that
shows the problem of newbies jumping into *FD.

I'd rather new users worked on articles.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Phil Boswell
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Tony Sidaway" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> message news:[hidden email]...
> > On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information
> >> should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the
> >> information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or
> >> bickering over the quality of the source?
> > This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians,
> > deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance,
> > "cruft", is seen as an end in itself.  The strategy being followed
> > seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to
> > exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then
> > move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable.
> > Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees,
> > repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
> [snip]
> > In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed
> > the worst kind of incivility.
>
> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
> them...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41115907&oldid=41110586
> is a fine example.
>
> I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar
> one AFAICT) rather offensive also.

The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
has made some 30 edits to the AfD.

Something stinks.
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Matthew Brown-5
On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
> precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
> Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
> article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
> has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
>
> Something stinks.

I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and
don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Tony Sidaway-3
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
> > precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
> > Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
> > article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
> > has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
> >
> > Something stinks.
>
> I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and
> don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.

Nor I.  But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days?
 This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about  verifiable,
referenced webcomic.  What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first
place? When  did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run
out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

geni
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nor I.  But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days?
>  This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about  verifiable,
> referenced webcomic.  What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first
> place? When  did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run
> out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"

Well it is a logical extension of "We have run out of paper please
take stuff out of the template namspace".
--
geni
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Mark Gallagher-5
On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> G'day Josh,
>
> > I'm almost speechless with rage at Jimbo's unilateral deletion of the
> > encyclopedia article [[Brian Peppers]] - not to mention his locking
> > (via [[User:Danny]] and [[WP:OFFICE]]) of [[Harry Reid]] for *five
> > days*.
> >
> > As I feared, userboxes have proven to be the canary in the coal mine.
> > Now it's articlespace that is being jerked around.
> >
> > Wikipedia ultimately must decide whether it wants to be Jimbo's
> > personal fiefdom, or be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
> > The two are clearly mutually exclusive at this point.
>
> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be "the
> free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much abuse, too
> much ranting from trolls with a sense of self-entitlement, encouraged by
> that tagline.
>
> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors are
> always welcome".

Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
Wikipedia speaks.



(Because you're not.)
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Michael Snow
In reply to this post by Joshua Griisser
Delirium wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a
>> good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
>
> That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original
> research" policy.  When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not
> the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether
> they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document
> *existing* historical narratives.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible kinds of historical narratives.
One is to bring together various facts about a subject in reasonably
coherent fashion, without imposing any interpretation on it. Done
Wikipedia-style and well-referenced, I don't see the problem with this.
I think as far as the "no original research" policy is concerned, this
kind of historical narrative "exists", to use your phrasing, no matter
that perhaps nobody has actually written it yet. I'm not sure how else
you can justify having argued so strongly for including the history of
the Brian Peppers phenomenon in Wikipedia. In fact, this is a great deal
of what some of our better articles on obscure topics do. A thorough
history of webcomics may not be possible until the secondary sources are
better developed, but certainly enough primary sources are available to
make a start at it.

The second kind of narrative is one structured to draw some particular
conclusion or advance a theory. In this scenario the history is written
with a specific thesis and attempts to show its validity. That approach
isn't really necessary to writing a history of webcomics, though it's
certainly a pitfall to watch out for.

--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: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
> Wikipedia speaks.
>
> (Because you're not.)

That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
attempt to interpret the will of "the community".

Steve
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:

>I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source  
>which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it  
>is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press,  
>blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative  
>is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of  
>the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and  
>unscholarly.
>
Agreed, but I think some of our colleauges would be much happier with a
one model suits all solution.  Obviously we need a stricter standard
when it come to information about living people.  Pop culture in some
respects really doesn't matter; at the same time I'm convinced that we
have Wikipedians who are undocumented bona fide experts on these topic.

One cannot predict what will be authoritative, though I think that our
credibility is much improved over what it was a year ago.  Pop culture
may be undignified for some, but we must never forget the attraction
that many people have for the trivial.  Many of these people will also
fall for the most ridiculous urban myths, but it would be nice if "I
read it in Wikipedia" could a mark of authority when people repeat thes
useless fact to their friends.

I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the
background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was
interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a
tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw
experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
investment.

Ec

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
"Tony Sidaway" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:[hidden email]...
> On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> "Tony Sidaway" <[hidden email]> wrote in
>> message
>> news:[hidden email]...
[snip]

>> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
>> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
>> them...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41115907&oldid=41110586
>> is a fine example.
>> I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote
>> (bar
>> one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
> The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
> precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
> Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
> article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
> has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
> Something stinks.

Certainly does.

In this edit
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40951840&title=Talk%3AList_of_cultural_references_to_Neglected_Mario_Characters)
the nominator admits that NMC, the web-comic involved, was the first "sprite
comic".

Oddly enough, his nomination is based upon no proof of such an assertion
being available...
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the
> background.  Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention.  It was
> interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
> recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
> journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
> review than the existing system.  Many of these journals operate on  a
> tight budget.  They may require their authors to maintain raw
> experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
> journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
> Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
> institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
> not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
> investment.

Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different
lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :)
Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia,
because it's there, and it's so easy.

Steve
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by John Lee-5
John Lee wrote:

> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>
>>>If people refused to AfD anything they didn't know anything about (who
>>>can really say they know anything about my local garage band?), we would
>>>be deleting a lot less crap, if less good articles. It's all a question
>>>of trading off false positives for false negatives. I have rarely seen
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>It used to be that way. It was always considered better to keep a
>>crappy article than to delete a good one. The deletion policy used to
>>read "In case of doubt *don't delete*"
>>
>>
>
> AFAIK it still does. It doesn't say "In case of doubt don't nominate for
> deletion".
>
>
This would however be a sensible step to take. I saw an article the
other day about some quack medicine device which instead of AFD'ing or
{{prod}}ing, I did a quick Google search to determine that the thing
existed, then tagged with {{TotallyDisputed}} and wrote a note on the
talk page explaining /why/ I hadn't AFD'ed it. Since then it appears to
have been cleaned up a bit.

>>
>>
>>
>>>an ignorance-based debate that didn't end up getting closed as a keep,
>>>or being overturned by DRV.
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>So you admit the existance of ignorance-based debates on AFD? :)
>>Sounds like a good reason to get rid of the whole thing. The ignorance
>>is time-consuming, even for those who do not wish to get involved in
>>the ignorance debates.
>>
>>
>
> Wikipedia is full of editors generally ignorant in anything other than a
> few fields. Any decision involving community input would necessarily
> involve a lot of ignorance. If you can find something that cuts out
> community input with creating excessive elitism, or permits community
> input but avoids ignorance, feel free to put forth a proposal. Until
> then, I'll presume that this is the best we can do. A wiki is about
> letting people make mistakes (whether by fucking up an edit or fucking
> up a deletion nom), in the knowledge that others will correct them later on.
>
I'm all for limiting AFD and DRV to a panel of experts. I'd rather that
we were perceived as being elitist (think of the counter-arguments we'd
have against our accuracy critics) than deleting useful content.

--
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 (567 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia's destiny

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

>Broadly speaking, there are two possible kinds of historical narratives.
>One is to bring together various facts about a subject in reasonably
>coherent fashion, without imposing any interpretation on it. Done
>Wikipedia-style and well-referenced, I don't see the problem with this.
>I think as far as the "no original research" policy is concerned, this
>kind of historical narrative "exists", to use your phrasing, no matter
>that perhaps nobody has actually written it yet. I'm not sure how else
>you can justify having argued so strongly for including the history of
>the Brian Peppers phenomenon in Wikipedia. In fact, this is a great deal
>of what some of our better articles on obscure topics do. A thorough
>history of webcomics may not be possible until the secondary sources are
>better developed, but certainly enough primary sources are available to
>make a start at it.
>  
>
That sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but without any authoritative (or
even semi-authoritative) sources to fall back on, we do have to be very
careful that we're only documenting non-controversial things with a
minimum of interpretation.  Some of my wariness of novel historical
narratives stems from some argument on [[en:neofolk]], which has become
an idiosyncratic history of the music genre completely out of keeping
with its actual history, but one that's hard to refute conclusively
because there are no good widely-available and widely-accepted histories
of the genre.  In those cases, POV-pushers are left free to make up a
history that fits their particular sensibilities and promotes their
favorite artists.

I could see webcomics turning into that, as fans try to jockey to place
their favorite comic into a more prominent role in the history of
webcomics than it really deserves, and that's something we should watch
out for.  I do agree that simply listing whatever facts can be
conclusively established is fine though.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >> We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be
> >> "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much
> >> abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of
> >> self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
> >>
> >> I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors
> >> are always welcome".
> > Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
> > Wikipedia speaks.
> >
> > (Because you're not.)
>
> That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
> view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
> attempt to interpret the will of "the community".

You're right. I'm sorry.

But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque
groupthink.

That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.

It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought
against from day one.

And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
>>>precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template).
>>>Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
>>>article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
>>>has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
>>>
>>>Something stinks.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and
>>don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.
>>    
>>
>
>Nor I.  But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days?
> This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about  verifiable,
>referenced webcomic.  What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first
>place? When  did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run
>out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"
>  
>
As the number of registered users approaches infinity, the probability
of running across an ignorant editor or troll approaches 1. (Hm, I just
came up with that off the bat. Something to add to Raul's laws if it
isn't there already.)

John
_______________________________________________
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: Wikipedia's destiny

John Lee-5
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 2/28/06, The Cunctator <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 2/21/06, Mark Gallagher <[hidden email]>
>>>wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>We were just discussing that ... Wikipedia *doesn't* want to be
>>>>"the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit".  There's too much
>>>>abuse, too much ranting from trolls with a sense of
>>>>self-entitlement, encouraged by that tagline.
>>>>
>>>>I quite like the idea of "Welcome to Wikipedia, where good authors
>>>>are always welcome".
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Funny, I never realized you were the One True Prophet through whom
>>>Wikipedia speaks.
>>>
>>>(Because you're not.)
>>>      
>>>
>>That was uncalled for, you know. We're all entitled to express our
>>view of what Wikipedia is or should become, and all entitled to
>>attempt to interpret the will of "the community".
>>    
>>
>
>You're right. I'm sorry.
>
>But I think that Mark Gallagher's approach is dangerously wrong.
>Restricting Wikipedia to "good" people smacks of Animal-Farm-esque
>groupthink.
>
>That attitude gives "our enemies" way too much attention and credit.
>
>It creates way too much of an us-vs.-them paradigm which I've fought
>against from day one.
>
>And Wikipedia doesn't like that.
>  
>
[[WP:NOT]] a social experiment. We're not here to see if trolls or "bad"
people can be rehabilitated. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and
anyone more interested in doing "bad" things can go busy themselves on
any of the millions of other websites on the internet. While I dislike
us vs them dichotomies as much as the next fellow, I can certainly bear
those acting in good faith vs those acting in bad faith.

John
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 ... 89101112