Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
| Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.
4000metres = ?
On several different airport pages, 4000 metres mean several different things. It sometimes states 13120ft, 13123ft, yet i've gotten 13124 on my calulator using 1*3.281. Which is the most correct? It is very confusing...
- The actual conversion from meters to feet is 1 foot = .3048 meters [1]. Multiplying meters by 3.281 is an approximation to this (1/.3048 is actually 3.280839895013, more or less). Using this as the conversion factor, I get 13123.359580052 (which rounds to 13123). However, if we're counting significant digits, 4000 only has 4, so using only 4 digits for the answer yields 13120. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well actually, 4000 only has one significant digit. It depends on the context, if someone is talking about a 4000m race, for example, then we know that it's 'exactly' 4000m and so an accurate conversion is more appropriate, whereas if 4000m means "nearer to 4000m than it is to 3000m or 5000m" then something more crude would be OK. On an airport page I would expect 4000m to meane "at least 4000m" as it's probably talking about runway length and you wouldn't want to be overestimating their length! You could always remove the imperial measurement. MikesPlant 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Beware - there is more than one definition for 'foot'. In the US, there is a "surveyors foot" which is still in common use - and a different definition of the foot prior to 1959(!). From the GNU 'units' program data file:
- "The US Metric Law of 1866 gave the exact relation 1 meter = 39.37 inches. From 1893 until 1959, the foot was exactly 1200|3937 meters. In 1959 the definition was changed to bring the US into agreement with other countries. Since then, the foot has been exactly 0.3048 meters. At the same time it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the US would continue to use the old definition."
- Notice that last bit...*MANY* existing US GIS data sources (maps and airport runway data) are still using the surveyor's foot - and lots of references pre-date the 1959 (or even the 1866) laws and have "non-metric" feet (isn't that an odd phrase!). Then of course in non-US countries, the laws changed at different times with differing intermediate definitions. Hence it should come as no surprise that everything is a horrible mess! SteveBaker 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- But the difference is small - 1 200 / 3 937 = 0.30480061 So for a 4000 m runway, that is either 13,123.3333 ft for the old definition or 13,123.3596 for the new definition, ignoring sig. digits. For most applications this is within measurement uncertainty. --BenBurch 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Beware - there is more than one definition for 'foot'. In the US, there is a "surveyors foot" which is still in common use - and a different definition of the foot prior to 1959(!). From the GNU 'units' program data file:
- Well actually, 4000 only has one significant digit. It depends on the context, if someone is talking about a 4000m race, for example, then we know that it's 'exactly' 4000m and so an accurate conversion is more appropriate, whereas if 4000m means "nearer to 4000m than it is to 3000m or 5000m" then something more crude would be OK. On an airport page I would expect 4000m to meane "at least 4000m" as it's probably talking about runway length and you wouldn't want to be overestimating their length! You could always remove the imperial measurement. MikesPlant 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ninjas or Pirates?
There is a big discussion going on about ninjas and pirates. the disscusion topic is "which is more popular, Pirates or Ninjas?". Everybody has a lot to say about this question so please say what you think and don't be afraid because you need to speak to be heard.
Gogoboi662 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Anthony Schade
- Pirate all the way! yo ho! yo ho! A Pirates life for me! also people love Caption Jack Sparrow and how many famous ninjas can you list? hmmmmmmmmm? ШнΨ ʃǏĜĤ†¿ ĞІνΣ ÎИ тФ ΤĦƏ ɖĄГĶ Ѕǀɠё фʃ ʈНę ʃФŖĆÉǃ 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- pirates spend alot of time so drunk they can't move, the ninja would have no trouble. by theonlysmartoneherelol
- Pirates, naturally. ;)--The Corsair 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ninjas, clearly. Deco 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pirates. The fact that I'm former Navy has absolutely nothing to do with it. ;) Durova 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pirates will own ninjas any day :P --Kar_the_Everburning 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think ninjas may be better disciplined than pirates, but then after watching a docu-drama on the BBC about Blackbeard, I think they might be evenly matched.
- Also pirates have cannons. Do ninjas have cannons? I don't think so. :P--Kar_the_Everburning 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then again, do pirates have weapons which can barely be pronounced? I don't think so. --Joti 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Are they fighting on land or at sea? I'd go with ninjas if on land and pirates if they were fighting on different ships. If they were fighting on the same ship, I'd still go with pirates since they might be better in a melee and would be accustomed to fighting on a ship.
If it were cavemen versus astronauts, I'd go with cavemen as long as there were no weapons, or only primitive weapons like sticks. I think all of the hard work that the cavemen do would make them stronger and they'd probably have experience from fighting with other cavemen. -- Kjkolb 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is going to change into a whole different subject because of your post, Kjkolb o.O
If a caveman took somthing from an astronaut, lets say... a laser sword(I'm so immature xD), I think you would run 'cause I don't think an astronaut would have any use for a wooden/bone club.--Kar_the_Everburning 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ninjas pwn j00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelius1031 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pirates, of course. (Oh, and the fact that my username, minus the numbers, is a synonym for pirate is completely coincedental!) Picaroon9288 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR — Omegatron 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- INDEED. SUPERIOR TO BOTH PIRATES AND NINJAS (WHILE STILL INFERIOR TO ROBOTS) WOULD BE THE PIRATE NINJA. - Robovski 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The answer is perfectly obvious: given that ninjas and pirates are both good, it surely follows that pirate ninjas (such as Chris) are better than either one. -- AJR | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Puh-lease. Just picture the Pirate/Ninja stealthily sneaking into the bedroom under cover of darkness - clinging to the ceiling with tiny bamboo-leaf sucker cups attached to fingertips and toes - and assasinating your enemy with a single drop of lethal poison by trickling it down a fine thread lowered into his mouth....with an eye patch, one wooden leg, a hook for a hand and a damn great red and blue parrot on his shoulder incessantly yelling "PIECES OF EIGHT!! PIECES OF EIGHT!!" ??? I didn't think so. SteveBaker 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Pirates, DUH!A7X 900 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that there are likely far more actual pirates than real ninjas in the world today, I'd say pirates are more popular, even though I personally find ninjas more interesting. But piracy a more popular occupation, judging by acquaintances I have who sail in tropical seas. I've met more people who have encountered real pirates than people who have encountered real ninjas. =Axlq 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's because nobody who meets a ninja lives to tell about it! Deco 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ghost pirates!(i've posted too many times here >.<)--Kar_the_Everburning 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is a need for more practice of Piracy. Ninjitsu is an overrated and loathesome past time that need not be afflicted upon the peoples of the world. Someday the pirates wil be up in arms and all the Ninja will do is a pretty backflip onto some roof in the horizon, then prance about with flashy stars and I will be in my house laughing and consuming the maids latest affrontary on the consumable medium. May Satan save us all.--R.A Huston 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dude! Ninjas all the way! Kyo catmeow! 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ninjas Clearly way cooler than pirates --Fittysix 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ninjas...for obvious reasons... ;) --さくら木 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- 20 legit reasons that pirates are better (from a Facebook group; I'm not responsible for any contraversial points as I didn't make them):
- Ninjas don’t choose to be sneaky, they have to be. The only way that they can kill anyone is if they sneak up and stab them in the back and then run away. Pirates basically announce that they are coming because they know that no one can stop them.
- Ninjas have poor social skills. That is why they are such loners. Do you ever see a loner pirate? No.
- Pirates get all the booty.
- Famous pirate movie: Pirates of the Caribbean (Johnny Depp is a pimp)... Famous ninja movie: 3 Ninjas (enough said) (What? did you say "what about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?" Well see #10 below duh.)
- Pirates get pet monkeys and parrots. Ninjas get nothing.
- Pirates eat meat off the bone. Ninjas eat low fat yogurt (it’s the only thing that is transportable enough for them to carry in their black clothes or whatever the heck they wear).
- Pirates get to use cool words such as “Yo Ho,” “wench,” and “argh.” Ninjas don’t talk (poor social skills, remember?).
- 84% of ninjas are homosexual. Look it up. It’s a fact.
- Pirates speak English. People who speak English are BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Plus, they have cool accents.
- One might say, “Well, what about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?” Now, I will admit that the Ninja Turtles are awesome. Unfortunately, they are NOT ninjas. According to TheFreeDictionary.com, The definition of a ninja is “a person skilled in ninjitsu.” The definition of a person is “a living human.” Therefore, a ninja is “a living human skilled in ninjitsu.” Since they are turtles, they are not ninjas.
- George Washington was a pirate.
- Pirates have been known to eat up to 70 pancakes in one sitting. Can a ninja do that? No sir.
- Pirates have a universal symbol: the Jolly Roger.
- Ninjas have no famous Disney characters. Pirates have Captain Hook.
- Pirates sing pirate songs. Ninjas just read Cosmo.
- No one can make artificial limbs look cool like pirates can.
- Pirates get to pillage. Pillage...what a freaking cool word.
- Shakespeare prefers pirates. There are pirates in The Tempest. Are there ninjas in any of Shakespeare's works!? No!
- In the song "That's Life", Frank Sinatra sings, "I've been a puppet, a pauper, A PIRATE, a poet, a pawn and a king." Frank Sinatra is a pirate, FRANK SINATRA. Beat that, ninjas.
- Ninjas don't get to keep the stuff that they steal, they give it to their government. You know what that means?, Ninjas work for the man, that's right, THE MAN. Nobody likes the man.
--Vic226 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Vic226 make's a great point.A7X 900 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
University students seek Wikipedia contributors for usage survey
I'm part of a team in a management & organizational analysis at the Stern School of Business at New York University. We selected Wikipedia as the subject of our final analysis, and are specifically interested in what drives people to participate in Wikipedia. To this end we've compiled an anonymous, 5-minute survey that we hoped the Wikipedia community would take part in, everyone from casual readers to editors to members of the Board.
It's available online at http://tramchase.com/wikipedia-survey
Please be as detailed as possible. Your participation is much appreciated!
- One might perhaps be able to make inferences about the degree of cluefulness of the survey's designers from the fact that they link back to Wikipedia using the address wikipedia.com, not the more correct wikipedia.org (it's run by a noncommercial organization). *Dan T.* 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not to mention the facts that a) the contribution here was not signed and b) the student(s) did not bother to create a userpage, which they could use to manage the communications around this matter to some degree. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Summary style violation?
Curious to hear what other editors think of History of the Alaska Aces. Ignoring for a moment the article's cleanup issues, this strikes me as way too much detail for Wikipedia's coverage of a minor league hockey team. Before I rush to propose a pare-and-merge, I thought I'd solicit second opinions. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sitting here in the UK it looks like way too much information for a minor Hockey team on the west coast of the states. However, to people who live in Alaska this might be quite important and they would welcome the information. My point is that our view on what's important and how much information should be carried in an article depends on our own personal interests and where we live. So I'd be careful about removing too much information. Having said that there does seem to be too much detail and in the process of cleaning up the article I'd look to cut back the information. Once this article has been cleaned up then I decide if it should be merged. --MarkS (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What is it with Wikipedia and Hurricane articles?
--Ideogram 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Context goes here. --tjstrf talk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ideogram, tjstrf was pointing out that your comment requires context. Please provide some. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Everything I meant to say was said in the header. --Ideogram 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're saying we have too many, or not enough, or that we have the right number but they all suck, or that we're vehemently opposed to articles about hurricanes, or that they're are best group of articles and you can't figure out why, or... CONTEXT! --tjstrf talk 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Everything I meant to say was said in the header. --Ideogram 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying. I'm asking. Which of those statements do you believe? --Ideogram 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Har har, Socrates. --tjstrf talk 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not saying. I'm asking. Which of those statements do you believe? --Ideogram 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not quite my intent, but that's a philosophical issue impossible to discuss here. --Ideogram 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...I'll be going somewhere else now... If you ever feel like actually asking your question, I'm sure someone else will be able to help you. --tjstrf talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not quite my intent, but that's a philosophical issue impossible to discuss here. --Ideogram 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has 7 featured lists about hurricanes and tropical storms. Whatever it is about Wikipedia and hurricanes, I hope it affects more pages. DurovaCharge! 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I'll second that! We have tens of thousands of articles that could benefit from that kind of quality and attention to detail. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Count a third vote for the condition that has affected our hurricane articles to spread to the entire encyclopedia! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I do wish someone would standardize the Hurricane article names. --Ideogram 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Take it up on WP:TROP then, an outside view would be valued. I think there is an issue in the article names of the older storms (pre-1950). With more recent storms there is as much consistency as there can be; I really don't think Hurricane Katrina should be at Hurricane Katrina (2005) for example. Which article names do you have a problem with? (disclaimer: I'm a wikiproject member)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a good reason for this. It's not important enough to me to pursue. --Ideogram 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, they are standardized. Retired tropical cyclones have their name on the "main", disambiguated article page; the rest of the articles have a year disambiguator on them. If there's only one occurrence of a name ever used, then that page gets the main article page as well. Also, storms that reach hurricane or typhoon intensity get their name from the basin in which they first reach that intensity; for example, Hurricane Ioke formed in the North-central Pacific Ocean, so it receives the "hurricane" designation for our purposes, in spite of it being known as Typhoon Ioke while on the Northwestern Pacific. Titoxd(?!?) 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was a good reason for this. It's not important enough to me to pursue. --Ideogram 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Autogenerated edit summaries
Lately I've seen a lot of edit summaries by IPs and new users that say things like, "Replaced page with 'u r a turd'" or "Blanked page" or "Created page with 'blah blah blah'". This seems... odd. I know there had been some talk about autogenerating edit summaries and I'm wondering if that has now been implamented and if that's what I'm seeing. Especially since almost every thing on new pages now has an edit summary that reads like that... When did this happen? And if they are autogenerated, why don't all edits now have some sort of edit summary? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Got an example diff you can show us? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. Here are some pulled from recent changes and new pages in the last few minutes:
- a diff with an edit summary of "Blanked the page"
- a link to the history of a new article with an edit summary of "(←Created page with 'Elsewhile (n) (EHLS-wyle) - 1. a rarely used coloquialism used to mean "some other time" or "another time". (Derived by the same linguistical logic in which "elsew...')"
- link to history of new article created with no edit summary (go quick, it could be deleted at any time)
- [2] a diff with an edit summary of, "(←Replaced page with ' {{Infobox_President | | name=Andrew Johnson FAG')"
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-20/Technology report, second bullet item. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- So this is a new feature, but only for changes that affect 90% of the article or new articles of 500 words or more. That ought to make life easier for RC and NP patrollers, and anyone looking at their watchlist! Cool. :) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Until the vandals figure it out and start circumventing it. :-) But anything that makes their work harder is good. Deco 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- So this is a new feature, but only for changes that affect 90% of the article or new articles of 500 words or more. That ought to make life easier for RC and NP patrollers, and anyone looking at their watchlist! Cool. :) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: they do seem to be figuring this out; I've already noticed a drop-off in the Edit Summaries. It sure was nice while it lasted : ) Doc Tropics 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Failed experiments: A method for gaining cooperation
An effort to update the Kennedy Assassination articles using records from PBS and the 1998 work product of the federal Assassination Records Review Board has landed this editor in hot water with a group of editors who like the status quo.
Presently, the group, who believes no new information is needed, has asked this editor be banned for "harassing" them with "Flat Earth" information.
During the course of this arbitration, one of the editors who opposes change, claims he has tried to edit cooperatively. That is good, but his methodology appears flawed. The editor states:
- “I don't like you. I think you're an obnoxious jerk.”
Later he explains to the arbitration panel that this:
- “[I]s an attempt to find common ground between [the other editor] and myself and move forward with editing the article productively.” [3]
Back to the drawing board.
RPJ 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Wikipedia?
It works right now, but it looks so ugly. There's no bars on the left and top of the screen. What happened? I hope this change isn't permanent. Robocracy 07:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears the same as always to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may need to adjust or reset your browser; I haven't noticed any differences. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 09:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you changed your skin, or the browser didn't load one of the stylesheets. The first issue can be fixed by Special:Preferences, the second by doing a hard reload, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Hope that helps, Kusma (討論) 09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer is a new essay... please help improve!!! MPS 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would if I knew what a Lexicologist was...--SonicChao talk 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- a dictionary writer MPS 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
shamless self promotion: Created a new essay, want others to read and comment on it:
I created an essay titled: Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia. It is supposed to be somewhat provocative. I am looking for comments and improvements. Please feel free to comment on the essay talk page or make any changes you see fit. Thank you. --Jayron32 21:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A new wikipedia
just a suggestion...
why not create a site 'wikipedia people' dedicated to profiles of people? Firstly a great number of people would use it and secondly i think that it would stop a lot of vandalism on the general wikipedia site if people can write about themselves elsewhere...
cheers
- A project like this has been considered before but the main problem is that if anyone could have a page about them put in, there would be problems with privacy breaches and a lack of acceptable sources for the information Tra (Talk) 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why not just use user pages? -Elmer Clark 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would ease the pressure of vanity pages. Maybe call it Wikiography? Who's Wiki Who? Any good project needs a good name. Robovski 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Selling out?
Does anyone know of any articles or discussions (here, or at WP:AN) about the risks of WP "selling out" or being exploited (be it by Jimbo or others)? I've seen a project page against the answers.com deal, but there was no real discussion there. Thanks. yandman 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- This topic comes up occasionally, see for example the "Wikimedia vs Wikipedia" thread on this version of WP:VPP. I think the bottom line is that although the risk of this happening is not actually zero it's extremely close to zero (and, even if it were to happen, someone else could recreate all the existing content at another website). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. yandman 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Times Accessed
On the Ultimate Elder Scrolls Pages, I saw that there was a counter showing how many times a page has been accessed. Is this possible in anyway on wikipedia? Jabunga 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is, however, wikicharts which gives this information for the top 100 most-viewed pages. Tra (Talk) 17:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
One for the Road: Disambiguation
There are (at least) three separate articles titled "One for the Road" with different capitalizations:
One for the Road
One For The Road
One for The Road
That's a bit silly, but I have no idea how to fix it. Hopefully there is someone here that can change that.
KUTGW,
87.68.147.72 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- What to do about this is discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I've moved these to (respectively)
- One for the Road is now a disambiguation page listing all of them, and the others redirect to the disambiguation page. I also fixed all the links to point to the right article. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good job in creating the dab page. I reformatted the line items to more closely match prevailing style guidelines for dab pages, but that's a minor embellishment on your work. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The vandal wars
Usually, I figure that (at least in high-traffic articles) we find and fix vandalism pretty quickly. However, I recently checked Uncle Tom's Cabin, certainly not an unimportant topic; no one had touched it in over 48 hours, but I found all of this to do just by way of fixing blatant vandalism: [4]. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Apart from the "30 books" line, most of that doesn't look like vandalism to me, just poor Wikiformatting. Lankiveil 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
Present tense
Just looking around a few articles and I notice that present tense is used far to often. For example looking at the page of Iffy Onuora, in one section it says he was the last Gillingham player to score a hat-trick. Problem being if the article isn't checked that statement will stay for year to come. In fact I'm not even sure it is true now. True or not I bet if a Gillingham player does score a hat trick this weekend that statement won't be revised. I think it's a big problem here in Wikipedia. Present tense shouldn't be used. The statement should read, up to (enter date) he was the last player to score a hot trick for Gillingham. Jimmmmmmmmm 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not an uncommon problem, agreed. I was looking for template tags that specifically address this matter, as I thought they might exist, and the closest might be Template:update or Template:copyedit. Personally, I would be more concerned with the verifiability, notability and neutrality of content over grammatical rectitude, but that is coming from someone who is by no means a grammarian. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody put a really long section into the Mena, Arkansas article regarding a local Yu-Gi-Oh tournament, including multiple external links to its website. Now, I'm not familiar enough with that local area or the Yu-Gi-Oh scene to know for sure if it's notable enough to deserve mention, but certainly this seems to be excessive prominence and detail for what seems to be a very minor event. I removed it but was reverted, and don't want to get into a revert war over it; perhaps somebody else should take a look. *Dan T.* 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- My opionion ... This is too much as included. A couple of sentences noting that a 'festival' like this exists is more than enough, but the remainder should be off-loaded to it's own article, thence to be judged for survival via standing notability guidelines. The extended passage reads not unlike an advertisement by one of the tourney's organizers. Out-right deletion will lead to a revert war, so work at reducing it to it's notable core and create an article for the rest ... which you might even put into the deletion stream if you feel that is warranted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the anonymous IP who has obviously written this is happy to see it reduced to a notable core, he is persisting in re-inflating the section with plainly unencyclopaedic detail. Any other ideas other than revert warring on how we can solve this? Lankiveil 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia doesn't work any more?
I'm increasingly noticing that Wikipedia is loosing the battle against vandalism. When I started editing here a couple of years ago, there was a FAQ somewhere saying something like
- But if anyone can edit, isn't Wikipedia open to vandalism
- to which the answer was
- Sure, Wikipedia is vandalised all the time, but it always gets reverted by the many other editors who want the encyclopedia to improve
This isn't really true anymore.
Last night I went over to look for a photograph that I had added to the Guy Fawkes article and was only mildly surprised to find that it had disappeared. Whilst checking to see whether someone had had a valid reason to remove it (they hadn't) I trawled through a large number of diffs and found that the article had steadily degraded over the last month. During that time there were still plenty of reverts, but when there were several bad edits in a row it was often only the last bad edit hat got reverted.
In the same article I noticed that a whole section on 'language' had disappeared, and a sentence in the opening paragraph which used to read 'a group of Roman Catholic conspirators' had been vandalised to 'a group of Roman Catholic' which was then just corrected for grammar to read 'a group of Roman Catholics'.
I think the problem isn't just a rise in anonymous users making random bad edits, but rather an attrition of top flight editors. As a result articles are left with nobody taking a full time active interest in them - some vandalism gets corrected but plenty gets overlooked. It is not feasible (or desireable) for an editor to take ownership of an article and maintain it for the next 20 years, so the system only works if there are enough new good editors coming along who can keep up with the flow of detritus and outweigh the influence of the bad editors. Unfortunately I think the tide started to turn about six months ago.
This isn't an isolated case. I've got several thousand articles on my watchlist that I don't watch avidly, but if I compare an article with its version a week ago, many of them show signs of creeping deteriation. Of course it is much harder to repair an article once bad edits begin to build up, you can't just revert to an earlier version.
The good news is that the Guy Fawkes article is still significantly better than it was a year ago. -- Solipsist 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's strictly anecdotal evidence at this point but I've been having the same feeling. Haukur 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. Things that worked when we were small won't work as well when we get big. — Omegatron 15:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO, the most interesting thing about being involved in wikipedia over the years has been watching the change in its highest-level problems (from 'not enough articles' to 'too much crap' to 'increasingly bad incompetence-vs.-editing ratio') and seeing how (or whether) the system adjusts. I think it's possible it will stop being useful in a couple of years, in which case its Google ubiquity will become a serious liability to the Net; but then again, I've thought that for a couple of years, so what do I know? - DavidWBrooks 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is definitely a real problem. A similar thing had happened with the Network topology article last spring, with half-reverted section blanking vandalism resulting in the article steadily shrinking to less than a third of its original size over the course of about three months. (Since I reverted it in May, there have been over 150 edits to the article. What has changed? Not much.) The only positive side to this is that, once you do notice something like this happening, it's not that hard to go through the history and restore the article to its original glory. But still, there must be hundreds if not thousands of articles like this around, slowly eroding away because no-one is watching carefully enough. Ironically, it's the controversial articles with constant edit warring that never suffer from this problem, since those always have editors who are quick to spot any changes they dislike. What I feel we really need is some kind of a technical solution. Stable versions and/or patrolling might help. So would some way of hiding reverted edits from the edit history. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- The term for this problem is edit creep. One way to deal with edit creep is to check the page history for the last known reliable version and delete harmful changes that occurred during the interim. The German language Wikipedia is experimenting with a stable versions option that would help address edit creep. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only add my own feelings of frustration to the mix. While it is annoying to discover, for example, that a few weeks ago, a count of the then last sixty edits to Cape Verde showed that all but two were either vandalism or reverting of such, what's worse is the editors who believe that they can add a contradictory statement to the end of an article with no context (and usually no grammar and no capital or space after the previous fulll stop). If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an article that read something like "Smith died of lung cancer in 1958, survived by his wife and two daughters.in 1933 he scored a century for England against austalia." (sic throughout)
Honestly, have people who add this type of edit ever read an encyclopaedia before? How difficult is it for them to add the piece of information in the right place in the article? If the answer is "too difficult", don't do it. The sooner wikipedia restricts the ability for anons to edit, the better. --Roisterer 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it all a part of the love/hate that is Wiki? I love that anyone can edit and contribute. I also absolutely hate that anyone can use that edit to misinform, pervert and vandalize. How can we have our cake and eat it too? Robovski 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the only thing able to restore Wikipedia's health in the long term is (1) better antivandal bots and (2) running these bots to analyze the entire history of a page, not just watch recent changes. Once a bot finds a historic vandalism that was never reverted, it is feasible to automatically revert it in the current version without affecting the useful edits that were made in the interim.
Surely no bots can catch all bad edits. But such bots are getting better all the time, and we can rerun them on page histories again and again to fix what was missed last time. It's reasonable to expect that bot intelligence will keep slowly approaching human intelligence - and once it gets close enough, Wikipedia may be considered officially out of danger. Perhaps the main reason for why AI hasn't (largely) happened yet is that so far, it's been something from the "would be nice" category. And Wikipedia is now pushing it into the "essential for survival" category. Trapolator 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a fairly new editor (I guess it's fair to call myself that now), I can say that there is a pretty steep learning curve to getting the hang of editing--especially editing well. Maybe a series of beginner how-to articles should be linked to in strategic places. For example, when editing an article, when looking at a page history or diffs, etc. The articles should be a mix of how to edit well, and why editing is important and the goals behind good editing. Something like an ethics for Wikipedians or how to be a good citizen of Wikipedia. I am sure that not everyone will read the articles, but it might help those who have the "spark" have an easier time becoming good editors. Otherwise, only people with actual "fire" are likely to push through the frustration and become editors. --Willscrlt 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- This has the makings of a wikipedia:essay. Part of me wonders whether the apparent change happened because of the the "No anon IPs can make new articles" decision or if the sheer number of articles is outpacing the number of editors. I have heard that Jimmy Wales has asked that people work more on the quality of existing articles. I also wonder if there has been an increase in vandalism simply due to the increase in publicity for wikipedia in recent months. Maybe we have reached a tipping point of some sort. MPS 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
How do I delete pages
let me know pls. thx 24.16.19.181 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. What's the page in question? Also, if it's a page you created and no other editors have added content, put {{db-author}} at the top and an administrator will speedily delete it for you. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lovingmelanie 24.16.19.181 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
is it acceptible
Is it acceptible to humorously vandalize pages that are gonna be marked speedy deletion anyway? For example lovingmelanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.19.181 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
US Authorities on Wikipedia?
I posed the following question which began a thread on the help desk and someone suggested the village pump would be more appropriate venue for this discussion. So if there are any further thoughts or views on this, I'd appreciate hearing them. I've purposely avoided naming specific editors/administrators in this because it's more concern based on a pattern of practice. This sinking sense I got by starting with the linked article through to its talk page and then uncovering repeated administrative maneuvering and contemptuous and intimidating encounters with other editors and administrators it made me want to stay clear of this article. However, I was worried about the reputation of Wikipedia in general. --70.8.49.7 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the US government is granted special permission to as editors and administrators on Wikipedia? I ask that because many of the articles associated with the September 11th attacks read like press releases from the Whitehouse instead of encyclopedia articles. Also reading through endless discussion pages reveals they look more like usenet newsgroup discussions than discussions about writing wikipedia articles. A core group of administrators and editors pretends to be ignorant of Wikipedia polices and uses they're administrative powers to be disruptive, and intimidate other editors and administrators. They seem to be immune from any disciplinary policies.
I thought about jumping into these discussion, but I do not want to get in any trouble with the authorities. From looking at the history any dispute reolution measures look futile. If these articles are only intended for US authorities to edit, why doesn't wikipedia simply place a notification on those articles to indicate such special treatment. I think we're losing good editors and admins who just don't know these articles are off limits. --68.30.94.147 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that a better place to discuss this would be the Admin's Noticeboard, the village pump, or even the mailing list. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, no special rights are given to the US authorities. The reason many articles tend to agree with the official line on things is that, well, the official line on things often tends to agree with reality... Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are not given those. It would compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, and its Neutral-Point-of-View Policy. If you think an article too strongly leans toward one direction, you can change the article (explain why in the edit summary), but better yet, bring it up on the talk page, and cite specific examples. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Shimgray, you raise a good point. However, I didn't realize Wikipedia had an official line that tends to match reality. These are the sme type of bizzarre arguments I see these privileged aditors and administrators make.
- Royalguarfd11 I will try to take this to the village pump. Thanks for the suggestion. --68.30.94.147 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have any kind of an "official line" on topics - what I mean by this is that when our articles tend to agree with what the White House says, or what Number 10 says, this is because what those people are saying happens to be vaguely right, not because we're letting them control the articles. Much to my astonishment, it does sometimes happen that government spokespeople make statements that describe the real world... Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's true of every press release every issued. They always "make statements that describe the real world" Unfiltered press releases have no place on Wikipedia IMHO. --70.8.49.7 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...I think you and I are completely talking at cross purposes here. Perhaps I ought to go back to the beginning -
- Wikipedia does not give editorial control to government agencies.
- Wikipedia does not give special rights to representatives of government agencies.
- Wikipedia does not take its editorial line from government agencies.
- Wikipedia does not place articles "off limits" on behalf of government agencies
- Hope that clarifies things. Shimgray | talk | 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll butt in with a hypothetical question of my own here. What if a really high ranking official, say the President, demanded adminship on Wikipedia. Are you obligated to give it to him? DoomsDay349 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...why on earth would we be obligated to give it to him? that's a bizzare concept. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Shimgray, I don't know how you or any editor could be so confident of what you're saying. I mean as a fairly new editor to Wikipedia I would say I would think Wikipedia doesn't grant special permission. However,
- when you look at the articles I'm talking about;
- when you follow through with the editors and administrators who maintain them; when you see the mockery they make of other editors other administrators and Wikipedia policies;
- when you see the selected topics of the articles they preside over;
- when you see the contempt they hold for every other editor they encounter (remember these are mostly administrators); and
- when you see how it seems to be a coordinated effort on 24-hour watch,
it really makes you wonder. I know I said I'd take this to the village pump and I will do that now and stop posting here. --70.8.49.7 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
end of Held Desk Thread
Given the articles that you're discussing,September 11th attacks, I suspect the answer is relatively straightforward...completely unrelated to any government activity at all, those articles are heavily edited by U.S. citizens. Americans may be a bit schizophrenic on some topics, but we can largely agree that blowing up our skyscrapers is not something we take kindly to. Any bias in the articles almost certainly relates to this, rather than a semi-conspiratorial government intervention. Doc Tropics 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) PS - the cabal made me say that!
- I work closely with the Foundation. I answer their email, and correspond with all sorts of people on their behalf. I follow most parts of the project's overall operational activity. I know what's going on as well as I can without being actually paid to work here. This isn't my assumption, this isn't my belief, it's a factual statement - there are not any articles "only intended for US authorities to edit", nor do we grant those authorities "special permission" in any way. It's not done from the bottom-up by the community, and it isn't done from the top-down by the Foundation
- In your specific case, these articles attract strong-willed editors - some of whom are admins, some of whom are not - and attract a vast amount of "drive-by" criticism; they represent a carefully developed and fragile consensus on what constitutes a neutral and balanced article. It is inevitable that these articles are watched heavily and that attempts to make major alterations are usually reverted on sight in favour of long meandering debates on the talk page - and that they will attract... how can I best phrase this? ...attract those of our editors who are least capable of playing well with others. Unfortunate, but there you go. It doesn't help that most attempts to alter these pages want heavy and sweeping changes, generally aiming for a completely different tone and conclusion, not something likely to get productive results.
- These "selected topics" aren't selected for heavy watching because they're politically sensitive; being politically sensitive means they get high traffic and thus the heavy watching develops, rather than being externally imposed.
- As to "making a mockery of policies", well, it's often claimed but rarely substantiated. If you have detailed and clear examples of a coterie of users forcing a particular point of view on an article against community consensus, we'd love to hear it so we can do something, but accusations of heavy-handed cabalism are ten a penny. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that conspiracy theories aren't looked upon too highly in Wikipedia, which is the other situation that the IP may be speaking of other than simple pro-American systematic bias. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray], again I find your confidence on this matter quite disturbing. The example of the September 11 2001 attacks article is a glaring example. That article says precisely what a small group of admins want it to say. Reading through the discussion (including 17 pages of archives), no one has been able to add any balance to the article. It really does read like a press release for the Bush Whitehouse. The admins deciding what this article can say repeatedly take disciplinary measure against anyone they can, while playing fast an loose with any policies open to interpretation. Other unsuspecting administrators have found themselves disciplined just for trying to step in and provide balance.
- I've been participating here long enough to know disputes are common on Wikipedia. But nowhere else on Wikipedia have I encountered such a vitriolic group of administrators attacking other administrators (and even newly registered editors) and with seeming immunity. And I am not speaking of conspiracy theories which I too disdain. I concerned about what's going on here that I worry could be like a cancer that's discouraging and chasing away good administrators and editors just to protect this one group (the Bush Whitehouse) This is about one particular entity in America. It's not particularly a pro-american bias. That's a bit like saying that anything pro General Motors is pro-American (or the opposite). --70.8.49.7 01:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah - so that's why Karl Rove was too distracted to pay attention to the mid-term elections!
Considering that the offices of Congress got collectively blocked for vandalism less than a year ago, I regard it as highly unlikely that any special privilege has been granted with regard to this article. If any credible evidence exists of this thread's alleged exception to site policy, and if an editor who has such evidence fears reprisal, e-mail me off site and I will look into the matter. As a matter of full disclosure I cannot call myself neutral on this issue: I never edit that family of articles because my nearest relative survived the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11 from a high floor and I joined the armed forces and went to war as a result. However, I am now a private citizen and am not beholden to anyone. As one of roughly 5% of administrators who list themselves at Category:Administrators open to recall I welcome scrutiny for fairness from other Wikipedians. My e-mail address is available through my user talk page. DurovaCharge! 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: wouldn't it be better an editor anonymously posted the evidence to your talk page to avoid reprisals? Emailing someone would remove the anonymity. Or are you suggesting those seeking reprisals would be able to get around the anonymous posting? I'm just trying to understand this stuff. --70.8.49.7 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I treat e-mail as confidential (unless of course someone were to admit to child pornography or something like that). Editors are welcome to set up an anonymous e-mail account to contact me or to post to my talk page through a proxy server - it's unclear to me what type of reprisal this editor fears but I'll accommodate anything reasonable. DurovaCharge! 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. You had brought up fear of repraisals, but I didn't want someone who might be afraid of repraislas to midunderstand the technical issues involved. Obvoiusly we're only talking about Wikipedia here, its not like they're going to face a grand jury or something like that. --70.8.49.7 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the NSA had that much control over Wikipedia, the first thing they'd do would be to stop people from harassing a certain admin who works for them. And Jimbo has too much of a beard to be working for the government. yandman 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- NSA!? Jimbo!? You're aiming way too high here. A friend of mine who works near the program says it's just a bunch of grunts like him with no career potential. They shunt these pawns off to this program just to give them something to do. They're only roll is to be as ddisruptive as they can be and make sure Wikipedia says what it's supposed to say. We're not talking Ethan Hunt types heree. These guys couldn't find entrigue in a brothel. 67.167.7.187 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the e-mail with the eye-popping evidence. Come on, brighten up my day here...otherwise it's back to WP:RFI where I get to play Sherlock Holmes over linkspam and Spanish street slang. I'd much rather blow an NSA operative's cover story. ;) DurovaCharge! 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that Wikipedia gives any undo authority to government officials, but when I read stories that say the military is tightening rules on military bloggers and then I read the Pentagon creates a rapid response team, and then I look at the discussion pages mentioned here, I start to wonder if US authorities are on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm sure they are, and that isn't really bad. What would be bad is if people, in the government or not, are paid to guard or edit articles.—Slipgrid 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's even a better article. It says, "the Pentagon's latest recruits are not soldiers, spies or scientists but spin doctors, bloggers and YouTube DIY filmmakers as it prepares to launch a vigorous new media campaign in support of its ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan." Now, stopping the troops from blogging is one thing; recruiting people to covertly blog or create YouTube films is another thing. And, if they are doing this, it isn't a far stretch to think they are recruiting, and perhaps paying, people to edit Wikipedia. And, if this is happening, that's a problem. And, if it's happening, then it's would be on the mentioned articles that this would happen. Wacky? I hope! But, when I look at the archived talk pages on the mentioned articles, it seems that some admins are not acting in good faith. I've had some users, who may or may not be admins, tell me that homeland security is monitoring the pages, and I'd end up in Gitmo for suggesting some changes. And, I think if I've ever said anything outlandish, it's only after dealing with admins that are not acting in good faith.—Slipgrid 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the diffs. Vague speculation and allegations mean nothing. Evidence counts. And it's very easy to tell who's a sysop: just compare the username to Wikipedia:List of administrators. DurovaCharge! 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there really are secret plants among us trained to write high-quality Wikipedia articles, get along with people, and conform to Wikipedia policy, I think we should be thanking the US Government and asking them to send more over. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the diffs. Vague speculation and allegations mean nothing. Evidence counts. And it's very easy to tell who's a sysop: just compare the username to Wikipedia:List of administrators. DurovaCharge! 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't look at the article's in question. They're history and talk pages do not show high-quality Wikipedia writters conforming to Wikipedia policies and getting along with others. Just a cursory glance of these articles would show quite the opposite. And it's not easily apparant how many of these disruptive editors are administrators, but if you follow through on that it turns out ther's a lot of them. Yet most of the time they act like: <prancing around like a sissy> "Wikipedia policies... Oh dear I didn't know Wikipedia had policies. </prancing around like a sissy > Basically these administrators act like they never read the policies before.. I've senn them knowingly and defiantly add liebe3lous material to biographies of living persons. They just don't give a shit because sites like Wikipedia are a threat to national security in their way of thinking.. --Cplot 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow! the article that Slipgrid points to is very disconcerting. I can just imagine the profile of someone they might recruit for that. Some patsy who thought the answer to these attacks was to join the military to fight for Haliburton in Afghanistan. Clearly such a person wouldn't have the skills to think through serious intelligence matters,, but they'd be perfect for an assignment like this. Wikipedia should really take steps to prevent this sort of attack. Its integrity cannot withstand an attack like this..--Cplot 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- 22 hours after my call for evidence I still haven't received one darn thing. DurovaCharge! 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- All I can say is i'm devestarted. this is not supposed to happen :=( --12.2.23.146 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence is right above in the posts above. Are you just plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening" --67.37.179.61 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I would add to this discussion that I had been wondering how such behavior could continue unchecked for so long. This would be a good explanation. I've been trying to think of others but so far I draw a blank. I know some may say that's just how a decentered, democratic site works, but that wouldn't explain how so many disruptive editors could also rise to administrator positions. Any other thoughts about explanations? --Cplot 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
After having read oodles of postings to innumerable web forums, over the years, I'm only surprised when people take a rational, moderate, open-minded approach to any discussion on any subject. And some years ago Forbes (I think) published an article about corporate America paying folks to create and maintain stoogeblogs to battle criticisms from indie blogs, and since the government lately seems to be mostly about spin, rather than action, in the real world, as opposed to the fake world of television, I'm hardly surprised to hear suspicions raised about government employees sneaking in and editing things...especially since perception is reality. Cryptonymius 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just reading through this stuff starting from September_11,_2001_attacks and just following through from one link to the next. Read the talk pages of these editors. Read the administrative actions they've taken. There's so much questionable behavior it's stunning. Right now there's a group of them going after User:Seabhcan. These repeated frivilous administrative actions typically involve the same group of editors/admins and just seems to be playing the system without regard driving away decent editors or fueling animosity. No good will or assumptions of good faith whatsoever. Even if they aren't paid professionals they're certainly overtaxing the administrative processes of the wiki. When you see how they engage editors before taking administrative it's stern and not quite civil, but almost. But from the pattern, as anon mentioned, you can see how they just seemt to be trying to evoke a personal attacks or violations of the 3rr from those they disagree with. Once they have these personal attacks and 3rr violations in hand they begin more frivilous disciplinary pursuits. It definitely looks like a full-time gig for these folks considering hos much time they devote to the wiki. It's astonishing. At first I thought they just didn't no how to compromise on the talk pages, but when you keep following through and it looks really bad. This is not good. It's hard to tell how many articles have been tainted by this. And sorting through all this evidence would take a full-time staff. --67.37.179.61 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you create an account? It's hard to follow your points with difference anonymous IP's. --Tbeatty 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yah...seriously...if there are paid webspammers, it would be the conspiracy theorists trying to misuse Wikipedia to promote pet theories about the events of 9/11. They have more incentive for profit by being able to get their word out here and surely Wiki isn't considered a threat by the U.S. Government as a whole...all higher level governement officials are far more worried about whistle blowers and the press and than the "offical government" facts related to 9/11 being severely tested by misrepresentations in a Wikipedia article. Besides, the little pet theories do have an article here...9/11 conspiracy theories...and their ripoff books and other spam advertising are listed at the bottom of that article. Buyer beware.--MONGO 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, looking at the archives, I think you, MONGO, are one of the people they are talking about. You are the first to post on this topic to point the finger the other way. Your post above reflects your post on the talk pages in question. You admit their is a large number of people with a different point of view, but you allow the pages to call people who question the official White House version of events anti-semitic, which isn't the case. You claim to know what "higher level governement officals (sic)" are thinking. You are so certain that people with evidence to the contrary, that is document in the main stream press, are "webspammers" working for profit, that you respond to their good faith request for simple and basic edits to move the articles to a NPOV with nothing more than a "No Thanks." You may be some of the problem.—72.49.187.83 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yah...seriously...if there are paid webspammers, it would be the conspiracy theorists trying to misuse Wikipedia to promote pet theories about the events of 9/11. They have more incentive for profit by being able to get their word out here and surely Wiki isn't considered a threat by the U.S. Government as a whole...all higher level governement officials are far more worried about whistle blowers and the press and than the "offical government" facts related to 9/11 being severely tested by misrepresentations in a Wikipedia article. Besides, the little pet theories do have an article here...9/11 conspiracy theories...and their ripoff books and other spam advertising are listed at the bottom of that article. Buyer beware.--MONGO 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, you make a good point. This would be a problem no matter who was doing it. However, the evidence points to people pushing a very pro Whitehouse position. And certainly high government officials have much more pressing matters to attend to. However, as someone said above,. these are not high government officials, but some sort of hardly tie their own shoes types of grunts involved. The US military budget is something like $1 trillion dollars (best spoiken with Dr. Evil's voice). Somewhere I read recently, this budget was greater than all other military budgets worldwide cobined. Surely that hires a lot of thugs at minimum wage. Take a look at the articles Slipgrid posted. They're quite telling.. --Cplot 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simply not likely...there have been times that we are well aware of that staffers have edited articles about U.S. Representatives and Senators, but the "need" for a disinformation campaign regarding the events of 9/11 seems really just more of the type of thing a conspiracy theorist would be prone to believe. The feds don't give a hoot about Wikipedia as a whole, though individual persons may sometimes be very worried about misrepresentations in their biographies. In all seriousness, there is little profit margin for the feds to hire people to defend the improperly labelled "government story" on wikipedia, whereby, with books to sell and conferences to charges tickets to, the 9/11 Truth Movement and related entities do have a potential profit realization that may be enhanced by being seen as "mainstream" as far as the worlds largest web based encyclopedia is concerned.--MONGO 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simply not likely, but support by evidence in the mainstream press, as well as evidence on the discussion pages, as well as your actions. Where's the evidence to support your conspiracy theory?←72.49.187.83 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simply not likely...there have been times that we are well aware of that staffers have edited articles about U.S. Representatives and Senators, but the "need" for a disinformation campaign regarding the events of 9/11 seems really just more of the type of thing a conspiracy theorist would be prone to believe. The feds don't give a hoot about Wikipedia as a whole, though individual persons may sometimes be very worried about misrepresentations in their biographies. In all seriousness, there is little profit margin for the feds to hire people to defend the improperly labelled "government story" on wikipedia, whereby, with books to sell and conferences to charges tickets to, the 9/11 Truth Movement and related entities do have a potential profit realization that may be enhanced by being seen as "mainstream" as far as the worlds largest web based encyclopedia is concerned.--MONGO 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cplot says, "the US military budget is something like $1 trillion dollars (best spoiken with Dr. Evil's voice)." But on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld said that "according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." I don't believe that should go in the article, but a section of foreknowledge should be part of the article. Users have asked for that for many months.—72.49.187.83 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mongo, you're really not helping make your case. This idea that the hundreds of billions of dollars Haliburton and other defense contracts have made off the war on terror is "nothing compared to what these conspiracy theroists make selling their books and DVDs" is a talking point used on Fox News. Fox News reporters have revealed off camera that these talking-points come from the Whitehouse. I've seen you use this same talking-point numerous times. It's thoroughly lauphable. Aren't you a little embarrased to make such claims? BTW, I think we should try to avoid rehashing discussion of the article here at the village pump. --Cplot 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also Mongo, throughout the debates you have defined "conspiracy theory" as anything that disagrees with the Bush administration. That's quite telling in my view. --Cplot 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide some specific edits that you think were made by US authorities...either article edits or talk page edits. If you can't do that then this is all a waste of time. The path of the righteous is followed by those that talk about edits and not editors. Raising suspicions of this kind and not providing any evidence is the taking bad faith to it's extreme. Rx StrangeLove 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence has been pointed to, again and agin in this post. Talk about bad faith. You don't even bother to looki n to it. It's just not worth your truble I guess. --70.8.56.126 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I now see, they're vageuly admiting to it and just saying "so what. as long as we follow the rules" which is specifically what's at issue. They're using the rules to bully other editors and admins with ridiculous and repeated disciplinary actions. I thought it was considered cowardly around here to turn to disciplinary action everytime someone says the slightes disagreeable statement. So it's not even conjecture at this point. There's a group of admins who blieve it would be OK if paid US authorities were disrupting articles, intimidating editors and other administrators and basically lower the standards of Wikipedia in general. Now they're welcome to their opinions, but I think maybe this is a discussion that should be made much more explicit. What policies should exist around government authorities (from any government), pushing a specific agenda onto Wikipedia in a very disruptive way? --70.8.56.126 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- No one's pointed to a single edit to any article/talk page in this section, until someone shows some some specific edits that are done by suspected US authorities there's nothing here. And just to repeat something, anyone is allowed to edit here as long as they stay within policy. In the meantime point out something specific or stop making these accusations. Rx StrangeLove 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Omegatron is right: ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR!!! Cryptonymius 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You want evidence take a look at the history of the village pump. You'll find these messages deleted across every category of the village pump. Check the log, of the IP reporting the Feds inappropriate inovlement and you find it is now blocked. This one will likely be blocked now too. And all that IP did was post to the village pump something that should concern every legitiimate member of the Wikipedia community. There's clear evidence that something is going on here. Sure this evidence either shows inapprorpriate involvement of Federal Authoritieis or it could just be a prank by some editors and administrators trying to fuel "conspiracy theories": so they make it look like that by deleting "controversial" claims. If so then I'm likely in on it too. However, I have knowledge that it's the former (inappropriate Federal involvement)), but even if it's only a prank, it's inappropriate behavior. Something should be done about it. --70.8.132.79 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Some targetted editors
67.37.179.61 brought up User:Seabhcan as one of the targets of these admins. Tom Harrison also pointed me to User:Zen-master as another casualty of these friviolous disciplinary measures. Maybe Village Pump isn't the place for this, but perhaps we could set aside another page to compile the issues together. That way If anyone knew how to reach these lost editors, they could be encouraged to reeturn and appeal or simply return if they were just frustrated away. Obviously it takes a carfeul reexamination of each disciplinary case to see if it fits in this pattern. I don't pretend to know about these cases in extreme detail. But from a first look at them they seem to fit the pattern..
As somewhat of a novice here I had been reading blog rants against Wikipedia complaining it doesn't stand up to its mission and my first thought was: you just don't understand how it works. After reading through this stuff , though I'm thinking: maybe this seemingly crazed blog ratner was one of those editors targetted --Cplot 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
- I guess CPlot should be added to this list of targeted editors. He now faces an indefinite block without any clear allegations. I should also note that he was one of the only ones who did not post to this thread anonymously: aside from Federal agents (Clowns) pathetically trying to redirect the discussion. They're tactics are so transparrent. Is this some kind of junior high recruitment? program? --70.8.150.242 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is why you can't win against conspiracy theorists: If you oppose them, you're part of the conspiracy. If you don't oppose them, you become part of the "silent majority" that they claim to represent. If you prove them wrong, they just make more junk up to explain away your objections and claim you're repressing The Truth(tm)! CPlot is being blocked for disruptive behaviour and paranoid accusations towards other editors. --tjstrf talk 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I am being bullied by admin User:FisherQueen
I am being bullied and I dont like it. First, this person bullied me into making me feel that my article are rubbish and the comments and feedback I got are not very nice. Please talk to me on my talkpage. Thanks --Hammersmith123 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- FisherQueen is not an admin. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I didnt know that, but otherwise, I am being bullied by this user. --Hammersmith123 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- You create articles like "The Effects of Eyesight while consuming Bacon" and then consider FisherQueen's (under the circumstances) polite warnings about vandalism bullying? You're not getting any sympathy here. --Roisterer 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:Hammersmith123 has been indefinitely blocked as a vandal-only account. Gwernol 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am also being Bullied by User:FisherQueen
He makes my articles feel rubbish. Taking the mick out of anything i do and i dont seem to be the only one complaing. I have no connection with Hammersmith123 but he's absoloutly right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone not Wood house (talk • contribs)
- Either you are a sockpuppet - or you've had your Wikipedia account for less than 24 hours. Either way, it's a bit premature to be complaining about FisherQueen. SteveBaker 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Possible vandalism
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus, there's a jpeg, Human_Feces.jpg, exactly what it says. Not surprisingly, it doesn't fit its caption. Not sure how else to report it - and the possibility that this may have been done to other pages -, so I've done it here. 82.138.216.205 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Barbara Sutton
- The vandalism has been reverted, and the perpatrator blocked. Thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. Also, note that you can revert vandalism yourself by selecting the previous, unvandalised, version in the article's Edit History, then Saving it. Thanks again : ) Doc Tropics 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What's the proper way to request people to help an Editor Review?
I admit I have one up for review, but I just realized that this otherwise great idea (general input and/or RfA pre-screening) isn't getting a whole lot of help. Would it be proper to start placing some requests on a few talk pages, or should I do that to people who regularly vote on RfAs? --Bobak 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
History of deleted articles
Why is it that the history of deleted articles is removed too? It seems like no matter what, history should be preserved. Goaty 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted articles are often deleted because they're false, defamatory, offensive, or otherwise libelous, which is why the history is hidden (to non-admins). yandman 08:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Disturbing pictures.
I was trying to read the section on gangreen, but was immediately turned off by the images. Although they do fit well into the article, is there any chance wikipedia could have a feature that lets disturbing/graphic images be uncovered by a mouse click? To be quite honest I'm happy to read article on surgery without having to see surgical gore :o/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swyp (talk • contribs)
- But then who would say what is "disturbing"? Surgery? A penis? Muhammad? I'm afraid this would cause more problems than it would solve. What you can do is turn all images off on your browser. yandman 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some sites allow ALL images to be turned off, through an option either in the users profile or with a cookie (I like the first better). Some people prefer plain text browsing. -sthomson 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Linkimage, which puts the image one click away from the article's main page, has been used very succesfully in articles containing graphic images of sex, sexual organs, and occassionly, human corpses. While linkimage is an excellent compromise for images that might be considered "disturbing", there hasn't been any consensus to apply it to images in medical articles. Doc Tropics 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't know about Template:Linkimage; interesting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Linkimage, which puts the image one click away from the article's main page, has been used very succesfully in articles containing graphic images of sex, sexual organs, and occassionly, human corpses. While linkimage is an excellent compromise for images that might be considered "disturbing", there hasn't been any consensus to apply it to images in medical articles. Doc Tropics 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, many browsers provide the option of turning off automated image downloads, though this would be a generally undesirable personal shield to have to erect. This option was originally designed to facilitate rendering of graphics-heavy pages over slow internet connections. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My Complaint Letter to Wikipedia
This is my complaint. Thank You --Martenal0001 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ignoring for the nonce the supercilious verbage in the above discourse (diatribe?), I might suggest that you take a gander at Wikipedia talk:Expert retention, a more WP:CIVIL attempt at discussion; formulation of suggested recourse; and co-operative amongst concerned editors. In addition, if Wikipedia is not to your liking, perhaps you may wish to look elsewhere for ways in which to eke out your continued existence. In any case, I do wish you a plethora of brightly-hued sunrises : ) - jc37 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Does anyone mind if I move this to Martena'a userspace and replace it with a link? By the way, Martena, the most effective way of writing an essay is to structure the language around the ideas, not the other way around... yandman 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that the account would seem to have been created for just this message, I think moving it to the user's userpage would be a good idea (and feel free to delete/not bother to move my comment). We may also wish to consider the user's latest two edits, for further action. - jc37 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You do realize, of course, that once you remove all the highblown, badly over-idomized, and histronically grandeloquent phrasing that this message basically says "Waaah! You're bad!" I suggest the user spend several hours learning Simple English and learning to say what he means instead of demonstrating his ownership of a thesaurus. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You do realize, of course, that his essay is a joke - probably created by a complaint letter generator? 131.107.0.73 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You do realize, of course, that once you remove all the highblown, badly over-idomized, and histronically grandeloquent phrasing that this message basically says "Waaah! You're bad!" I suggest the user spend several hours learning Simple English and learning to say what he means instead of demonstrating his ownership of a thesaurus. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, this looks like someone was playing with the Complaint Generator again. These seem to be popping up in a few places right now; the hallmark would be huge amounts of verbosity and absolutely no meaning, message or sense. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I stopped halfway through the first paragraph. Why bother, when they obviously are bloviating without any other purpose? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure where else to post this, so I came here. Could some of you guys add West_Cheshire_College to your watchlist? There's been unchecked slander sitting on the page since early July, and the author has continuously returned to add more. I'm fairly sure he's not done yet. Thanks. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the heads-up. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone up for an interview?
I need to write an "ethnographic reasearch essay" for my university english course. I thought wikipedia would make a great paper, but I need someone to interview...
If there are any takers, just email me and I'll send you a small list of questions.
Thanks!
ColinDC 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
User complaint about History of erotic depictions on main page
I was thoroughly disappointed to see the Wikipedia main article today on 'History of Eroticism'. The links that the alleged 'scientific' article brazenly provided leads one to explicit pornographic pictures! What were the editors thinking??? Is this to improve your readership?
I always tell children to use Wikipedia for the wealth of knowledge it provided. But unfortunately one has to be on guard now. The sad thing is Even Net Nanny would not stop displaying such pages since they are coming from the trusted Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.58.13 (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. If you wish for your children to not encounter such things, they should probably not be allowed on the internet unsupervised at all. --tjstrf talk 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is definately not safe for children, nor did I ever think it was. I encourage my kids to use it for research all the time, but only with me supervising. Perhaps check the featured article of the day from now before letting your students use it on any given day? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's important that we retain the right do this kind of thing if we have the need - but I think we should be more circumspect about how we use that privilage. So - yeah - Wikipedia needs to have the freedom to write about whatever we want and publish it without people hassling us about age-appropriateness or censorship. We have that freedom - and if we need to use that power for the good of the encyclopedia - we can certainly use it. However, we didn't need to put this kind of thing onto the front page - and we shouldn't have done so because it will definitely upset a good fraction of our readership - and that will harm us in the long run. It's not like we don't have plenty of other FA's to put there. SteveBaker 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- To me, the main page of any Website, not just Wikipedia, should remain appropriate for all ages. I saw the article, and the picture attached to the article was a tasteful depiction of naked people from antiquity. It was not at all offensive to me, but then I see nothing wrong with taking children to see classic works of art in museums, even if they contain nudity. It's a matter of opinion and taste. The problem is that by placing articles like that on the main page, parents are not given a choice about whether they feel it is in their children's best interest to see the articles or not. They are exposed to it regardless. While I oppose censorship, I do think that people should be given the option of viewing controversial issues or not. And Eroticism is not the only controversial topic that should probably be kept off the front page. The tricky thing is trying to strike a balance, because once you say one topic is inappropriate, all topics people ovject to come under scrutiny. There is no perfect solution, but the people selecting main page topics could probably have made a better choice for yesterday. --Willscrlt 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The main page was appropriate for all ages. The featured article may not have been, but the main page was kept clean. Anyone who saw the objectionable content knew exactly what they were reading an article on, and chose to view it. --tjstrf talk 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the details of filtering software, but don't most "concerned" parents and public school libraries make use of such things and adjust the threshold to suit their comfort level? It seems a bit unbalanced to let concerns about children drive a debate about an encyclopedia. What the children view is the responsibilty of the parents, however they choose to handle it. Many reasonable parents don't regard this material as problematic at all, so it's clearly a personal and very subjective value. Doc Tropics 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- As 205.173.58.13 pointed out, many filtering programs filter exclusively based on the ___domain name, not the content of individual pages. I'm sure you can understand how trying to keep track of all the pages at WP could be a nearly impossible task for any filtering product. More sophisticated filtering programs also check contextually, but the article might still have passed unnoticed. I did not mean to imply that I felt the main page was inappropriate for children, and I agree with tjstrf that people who visited the article should have known what they were about to see. My comment was more to point out that with the millions of articles available, why could the topic selectors not have picked a different topic. I am sure a kid-friendly welcome page like Yahoo's Yahooligans along with a filtered search engine has been discussed before. This would be a good example of how that type of page could be helpful. --Willscrlt 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with tjstrf - there was one image on the main page, a graphic from a Roman fresco that's no different from what tourists giggle at in Pompeii. There are certainly more explicit images on that page, but that required a click-through. There is a line somewhere - would a porn-star bio really be an appropriate article to feature? - but I think this one was on the safe side of it. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Porn star bios of the featured level would almost certainly involve porn stars with substantial notability outside of porn, so it probably wouldn't be as big an issue as you suggest. A more interesting question would be if a porn star bio could be a DYK? feature. --tjstrf talk 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with tjstrf - there was one image on the main page, a graphic from a Roman fresco that's no different from what tourists giggle at in Pompeii. There are certainly more explicit images on that page, but that required a click-through. There is a line somewhere - would a porn-star bio really be an appropriate article to feature? - but I think this one was on the safe side of it. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't a priori clear to me why Jenna Jameson couldn't eventually get featured. There's obviously enough material about her to make it feasible. I'll resist making any puns on the topic although they come readily to mind. JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dammit! That wasn't deliberate! JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- LMAO! It's just going to happen, no matter how hard you try...Doc Tropics 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, but its so easy...JoshuaZ 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice that there actually aren't any pictures in that article which could be inappropriate for minors. Like I said, it wouldn't be as big a problem as you might think. --tjstrf talk 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that depends upon your point-of-view. I agree with you, personally, but I'm thinking in terms of some of the parents I've known and their proclivities with respect to what they would want their children exposed to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice that there actually aren't any pictures in that article which could be inappropriate for minors. Like I said, it wouldn't be as big a problem as you might think. --tjstrf talk 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, but its so easy...JoshuaZ 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- LMAO! It's just going to happen, no matter how hard you try...Doc Tropics 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dammit! That wasn't deliberate! JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't a priori clear to me why Jenna Jameson couldn't eventually get featured. There's obviously enough material about her to make it feasible. I'll resist making any puns on the topic although they come readily to mind. JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is pretty clear to me that this article being a featured article will make its way into the popular press as something like 'Wikipedia's encyclopedic treatment of porn' and will be misinterpreted by many as it was by the original poster in this thread. The statement "alleged scientific article" says it all, frankly; many many people in the general population believe that erotica and science are like oil and water - 'if it has to do with sex how could it possibly have any intellectual or scientific value'. I'm wondering if we (articulate wikipedians, that is) are prepared to defend the article, its ilk and the principles that abet its existence in op ed pieces in the newspapers where the inevitable news-for-shock-value will appear. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The argument that parents should be careful about what their children see online is a valid one - unsupervised browsing is not something a responsible parent is going to allow small children to do - no more than you'd want them walking through the worst parts of a city at night. I consider myself a responsible parent - and I'm not prissy. (I don't supervise my son who is now 15 - and I know damned well from his browser logs that he visits "certain sites" that I might maybe would have stopped him from going to...but I'm broad-minded - so I pretend not to notice). But let's think about a 4 or 5 year old child. In this case even the closest parental supervision wouldn't have worked. Let's work through the most likely scenario:
- So let us suppose that I don't want my 4 year old asking: "Why that lady is sitting on that man's lap and what happened to all of their clothes?"...that's NOT an unreasonable thing for me to wish to avoid...trust me - it's embarrasing to have to answer that question at that age. But I'm a good parent - and I'm going to supervise my little kid so he/she doesn't click on something inappropriate...so I sit with my little kid in front of a blank browser window. Little child says "Daddy - can we read about Elephants?" - "Sure! Let's go to Wikipedia and type in 'Elephants' at the search window."..."Now let me just blindfold you because I don't know what'll be on the front page today"...
- Surely we can all agree that this should NOT be necessary. I'm happy to sit with my kid and make sure they don't click on links to "Porn Star" or something - I'm happy to treat the Internet as a dangerous place where you don't want your kid to go unsupervised. But I really ought to be able to visit the Wikipedia front page without having to worry. I don't in the slightest bit mind that this article exists - it definitely SHOULD exist - it's a really well written and illustrated piece and it's worthy of FA status. But it doesn't have to be featured on the front page...really, truly...it's not necessary. We *WANT* children to read Wikipedia - it's the best site on the entire Internet for them - they can ask any question - ask for a picture of anything - and we can provide it for them - with appropriate supervision, sure. But there shouldn't be surprises like this. If you are heading into dubious terratory - you need fair warning - and putting it right there on the very top of the front page is a nasty surprise that no parent, even one who is trying hard to be careful, could have avoided. You can't duck out of it by demanding that parents take more care. It was a stupid, unthinking decision...period. SteveBaker 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, we can't agree there. From a merit perspective it's a scholarly subject, far more traditionally encyclopedic than a front page article of Bulbasaur. I've seen literally dozens of articles on eroticism in scientific (archaelogical) journals, nary a one on Marilyn Manson. If the front page picture had been a high resolution shot of some porn stars bust, then I agree we might have a small problem, but the picture was sufficiently historic to meet any standard of encyclopedic propriety, and indeed quite small in its presentation on the front page. Anyone who decides to murder us in the press for that particular article will have their work cut out for them if they wish to assault its scholarly integrity or encyclopedic worthiness. Call me if autofellatio becomes the front page article. --tjstrf talk 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Main Page also contains a picture of a swastika at the moment, which I'm sure would offend some people. Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, the featured article's Main Page image was quite tame and unobjectionable - if you click the featured article, which is called "history of erotic depictions", you can quite reasonably expect to see erotic depictions. The contributors went out of their way to hide some of them when it was totally blindingly obvious anyway that they'd be there - I think the images should have been displayed inline. Use some common sense here. Deco 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's quite simple: a fifteen-year-old son is the parents' responsibility; a four-year-old child is the parents' responsibility. Wikipedia is getting blocked in Tunisia - in China - and otherwise rational Wikipedians want to validate the principle of censorship? No no no. What part of that is unclear? DurovaCharge! 05:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Two responses to this "controversy". 1) The article is quite an academic, NPOV treatment of the subject. It is definately worthy of featured status. 2) I am speaking as a parent: Censorship is not the solution to the wish of some people to abdicate their responsibility as parents. Merely because you don't want to have to supervise your children while they do Activty XXX does not mean that they don't need supervision. Watch your children as they use the internet if you care about them viewing objectionable content. They are children. They need supervision. There is a word for people that don't need this kind of supervision. They are called "adults". --Jayron32 06:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Wikipedia editors
[5] What horrifying appeasers.
lots of issues | leave me a message 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Lets just condem communism in general, as a load of bullshit
†he Bread 08:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template locations
What happened to the Wikipedia:Template locations project page? I see this page has been changed for the last time in July 2006. Should it be marked as historical? BTW, someone should close the debates there. --Eleassar my talk 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)