For those of you who don't frequent the village pump,
I thought I'd let you know that the facebook ("Rogue's
gallery" as Andrewa humerously called it) is open at
[[Wikipedia:Facebook]]. It's a compilation of pictures of our
contributors.
There had been some discussion before about compiling pictures
of wikipedians, so I decided to be bold and created it. I personally
think it's great being able to associate a face with a username -
it keeps all the different users from blurring together.
I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say about it.
--Mark Pellegrini (Raul654)
mapellegrini(a)comcast.net wrote:
> I thought I'd let you know that the facebook ("Rogue's
> gallery" as Andrewa humerously called it) is open at
> [[Wikipedia:Facebook]]. It's a compilation of pictures of our
> contributors.
The idea itself is pretty good, but the page already demonstrates that
it doesn't really work because almost everybody is going to try to be
special and either distort their image beyond recognition (e.g.
LordSuryaofShropshire) or use something that barely even depicts their
self (e.g. Anth�re). To a non-Wikipedian, this kind of thing reinforces
the belief that Wikipedia is run/controlled by a bunch of weirdos.
Timwi
-------------------
I will be very frank with you Timwi, I think your comment is plain irrespectful, and a total dismissal of the variety of contributors to the project.
There are many types of contributors on Wikipedia, and so far, it is a key principle that Wikipedia is open to all participants, whatever their gender, their age, their culture, their level of education.
In case you are not aware, there are many women all over the world, who do not show part of their body, hair, or even face, to people who are not part of their family. That does not mean these women are weirdos. That just mean these women have a different culture from your culture. They are regular women, with the same type of intelligence or wiseness or leadership (to stick to your comment), that any women wearing westernish clothes (such as a bikini, as many french people keep requesting from me).
In my opinion, Wikipedia is not *only* an encyclopedia. We are not here *only* to gather knowledge, and make it available to the larger number of people in the world.
I think we are also here to learn from others, to acknowledge that other opinions exist, that it is best to take them into account, and to respect this diversity. I am convinced that this is a first step for peace, and indeed the first step for all of us to succeed to work together. And boy is it a high step !
If we ever want this encyclopedia to be used all over the world with full trust, such as perhaps in muslim countries, it is best that we collectively show that we are able ourselves to respect all these differences.
Claiming that the picture of a face covered female participant "will reinforce the belief Wikipedia is run/controlled by weidoes", is NOT exactly a step in that direction.
I think you have earned the right to make a couple of edits to one of the following articles on Wikipedia :-)
* Islam in France
* Ni putes, ni soumises
* Or the article about islamic veil and the law about banning religious signs in France
Anthere
PS : I often have questions about that picture, featured picture, and used in two encyclopedic articles, and no, not an islamic veil.
To make it crystal clear : that was the first personal picture I uploaded on Wikipedia. I did so around february or march 2003, and kept it on my user page for a good couple of months. And yes, the time of upload was deliberate.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
: who want to work with you toward a common goal, as
opposed
: to putting up with the disruptions and distortions and
: evasions and downright lies that we get so used to here.
: (You want examples? Try Wik or Nico or RK. ...
More off-topic slander. I'm not surprised. I don't even
contribute to Wikipedia anymore, ever since many members on
this list became actively anti-Semitic. It was bad enough
when proven Nazis like Stervertigo, and his cheerleader
Martin (MyRedDice) Harper were allowed to push their views
with the full support of this list.
It got worse when various list members wrote and telephoned
me privately in support, but admitted that they would never
speak out here in public because they were afraid of being
ganged up on (they were correct.)
It got even worse when your so-called arbitartors publicly
demanded that I accept admitted Nazis and work with them.
(Such quotes are still archived.) Sane people would see
that as obvious Jew-baiting; similarly, demanding that our
black contributors work with members of the Ku Klux Klan
would be racist black-hating. Yet sadly when this was
brought to the attention of this list, none of you
mentioned any problem with this.
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned
you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly
vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites.
Yet in response, you refused to ban this person.
Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's
views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as
a contributor.
People like you would be (and indeed, are) fired from
respectable encyclopedia projects.
Every wonder why so many people leave this project? It has
been taken over by leftists, anarchists, anti-science
whackos and hatemongers.
To be blunt, as long as you refuse to reform your system,
and as long as you allow these people to push hatred and
nonsense, Wikipedia will never be respected. It may become
popular, as Google hits show, but then again the
Nazi-website "JewWatch" is popular as well. Being
associated with this kind of popularity is something that I
do not want. I should have listed to my colleagues last
year, when they told me that they forbade their students
from using Wikipedia. They said it was anti-science,
anti-Semitic, out of control, and that without empowered
moderators it merely created facts by voting.
That is the kind of leftist Stanlinism-type "research" that
truly educated peopel abhor. Facts are not created by the
consensus of the most radical writers, no matter what the
deconstructionists and leftists among you might wish to
believe.
While Jimbo's idea of an open-source encyclopedia still is
a very good idea, Wikipedia will never be achieve this
goal. At best, it will be a good feeder and working sandbox
for articles that can be vetted by professionals for a
second-level, stable open-source encyclopedia, like Nupedia
was supposed to be. But the Wikipedia itself will at best
become well-known and infamous...not good.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Michael Snow wrote:
>
>
>>Finally, we have found a wiki to which we can direct our trolls, instead
>>of trying to pawn them off on Meatball or Sheldon's Disinfopedia!
>>
>>
>I would recommend against that, actually. I've talked to Juxho a fair
>bit, and he's a nice person who is trying to figure out how to have a
>nice wiki. He didn't say this part, but I think he's just not quite
>sure what to do about this situation.
>
The problem with joking and being serious at the same time is that
you're pretty much guaranteed to be misunderstood.
If Juxho actually objects to having us steer trolls his way, then we
should respect that. From looking at Consumerium, along with what other
people had to say, I had the impression that he's relatively accepting
of them. But I can also see that this is a small wiki still trying to
find its identity.
Anyway, if Consumerium or some other site does really become a
TrollWiki, it could be useful in providing an outlet to divert some of
the pressure that occasionally builds up around here.
--Michael Snow
uninvited(a)nerstrand.net wrote:
>Anyone who believes that the trolls will go away if not fed should take some time to review:
>
>http://develop.consumerium.org
>
>Among other features of the site are a number of articles that attempt to organize leftist POV authors and get
>them to edit at Wikipedia.
>
Finally, we have found a wiki to which we can direct our trolls, instead
of trying to pawn them off on Meatball or Sheldon's Disinfopedia!
I agree with Stan that this is no threat to us. Trolls are far too
focused on provoking people to concentrate on promoting any political
agenda, and this site demonstrates that even trolls can be trolled. At
best, if it manages to remain coherent, this site might eventually
become a place for outside criticism of Wikipedia. And if we're going to
present knowledge to the world, criticism comes with the territory. The
way to deal with it is to answer it - see [[Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our
Critics]].
--Michael Snow
>> I think Wikipedia tends to tilt slightly tilted towards the left of
>> center, and slightly towards an EU-centric viewpoint, vaguely along
>> the
>> lines of BBC News's tilt (though theirs is somewhat more pronounced).
>
> How fascinating! I tend to find wikipedia slanted slightly right-wing,
> with a wide spectrum of people to round it out. It's very interesting
> that we can get such different opinions of the same group of people.
I honestly hadn't noticed any particular _political_ bias. One of the
odd characteristics of Wikipedia is that it is (a) huge, and (b)
doesn't lend itself to getting any kind of synoptic overview--so one's
view of Wikipedia is strongly shaped by the articles you care to read
and/or edit. So how you see Wikipedia becomes a kind of projective
test.
Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: "What kind of folks
live around here?" "Well, stranger, what kind of folks was
there in the country you come from?" "Well, they was mostly
a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of
people." "Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of
folks you'll find around here." And the dusty gray stranger
had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a
clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: "What
kind of folks live around here?" "Well, stranger, what kind
of folks was there in the country you come from?" "Well,
they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly
lot of people." "Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the
kind of folks you'll find around here."
--Carl Sandburg, _The People, Yes_
(I'll save "The Blind Men and the Elephant" for another day).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
There is a lack of satisfaction with the arbitration committee. I share what I think are some of the sources of
this.
First, the committee was created to interpret existing policy. There is little existing policy to interpret,
and no new policy being made. If we want them to ban or otherwise sanction troublesome users, we need to
create such a policy as a community and ask them to follow it. I believe they need guidance.
Second, they are a larger group with diverse opinions. Compromise results, and the process takes time. If we
want them to be more definitive and rapid, we should encourage them to work in smaller groups, perhaps
selecting three arbiters for each case -- or maybe only one.
You can see all this from the public records of their actions over the last few months. No fly on the wall
required.
UninvitedCompany
In response to matters of Tannin, Wik, and the "Troll" user names:
The first thing we have to decide is whether we're going to use force to enforce policy. At present, as a
practical matter, we only use force:
1) against "pure vandals"
2) through page protection to deal with disputes on particular articles
3) as a last resort. We actually use bans about once a month, and less frequently than that if the very short
bans aren't counted.
Most policy violations don't result in meaningful sanctions. Most bans are not enforced.
I don't think we want to continue this, because things have changed and the amount of damage being done has
increased. The trouble now is not simple vandalism, as that gets reverted. The problem is users who are
editing in bad faith, and who all the rest of us are expected to negotiate with, respect, compromise with,
include in consensus, not censor, and so on.
So, we have Wik with his endless edit wars, and a few others like him but less prolific.
We have people using Wikipedia as a forum for self-promotion, or promotion of a particular political view.
We have people who come here to disrupt, like the recent spate of "trolls."
All these people take time and energy to deal with and set everyone against each other. I believe we are
presently stuck with policies and procedures that suited us well in the past but which we have outgrown.
The first step to fix this is to decide that we are going to start sanctioning people who contribute in bad
faith using technical means. Once we agree on the principles, the details will flow naturally. Yes, we need
to be careful and have checks and balances, but the present system is driving good contributors away.
UninvitedCompany
I agree with the notion of a "sense of proportion". "Troll" is an
ordinary word, harmless enough, and we can at least conceive of a
hypothetical in which "JRR Trollkien" is just a clever name chosen by
a clever fan of the Lord of the Rings, etc.
At the same time, though, it doesn't take very long in looking at
Trollkien's user page to recognize that he's posted the old "Legion of
Trolls" stuff, many comments supporting the idea of deliberately
disrupting work on the Wikipedia in order to foster change, etc.
That's what problematic trolling *is*. So, it isn't just the name,
it's the fact that the name is intended as provocation. That is, the
name is not about trolls or Tolkien, but about trolling us. (I think
the Internet Troll concept is derived from "trolling for fish", a
method of catching fish where you drag the bait through the water to
see what bites.)
Anyone who has a beef about sysops, who thinks that Wikipedia is a
ruthless dictatorship or oligarchy, etc., is more than welcome, God
knows, to come here and argue the point and complain about it and
suggest remedies. But what they aren't welcome to do is engage in
trolling behavior just to cause trouble. It's juvenile and annoying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Trollhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Legion_of_Trolls
Despite JRR Trollkien posturing that a ruthless cabal is out to get
him, our reponse to this has been typical, and something that I can't
quite make up my mind whether we should be globally proud of or
globally ashamed of... a long and tedious debate to try to find a
reasonable answer to the questions raised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JRR_Trollki…
---------
I have great sympathy for revolutions and reformers, we will always
need them, and I for one will always welcome those who come in and
challenge us to rethink our policies and procedures. That's very
healthy. In his response on the Reguests for arbitration page,
Trollkien uses this as a defense, claiming, "what seems to be at issue
here is _dissent_."
That's bullshit, of course, and please excuse my language. Dissent is
not a problem, just look around, it's all we ever do, and we all seem
to enjoy it well enough. And realistically, it isn't even _civil
disobediance_ which is at issue in any major way.
It's just behaving like a juvenile jerk, that's what's at issue.
-----
Imagine someone who shows up at wikipedia whose area of expertise
happens to be collectible dolls. This is not an area that most of us
know much about, so of course such a contributor would be welcome, and
would likely be editing stuff that's uncontroversial and not annoying
to anyone. The history of collectible dolls, the story of various
annual toy crazes, and so on.
http://www.trollworld.com/trtr19.html
Such a person might name themselves "Trollina", after these dolls, and
why not?
--Jimbo
That leads to all sorts of questions. What should female trolls be called?
Are they as sweet and lovely as Tove Jansson's "Snork Maiden" in the
Moomintroll books?
According to http://www.whatson.is/default.asp?web_id=3&page_id=181 ,
"Female trolls were usually more benevolent than male trolls. The female
trolls would often yearn for the love of humans luring men to their caves
with magic spells. In many cases the men would fall in love with the trolls
eventually becoming trolls them selves. Sometimes the trolls would have
children with humans a sort of a half troll. These half trolls would
generally look like ordinary humans possessing the magical powers of the
troll parent. Female half trolls would often be exceedingly beautiful and
enchanting."