At the suggestion of Essjay, I'm trying to publicize the
[[Wikipedia:Usurpation]]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usurpation> proposed policy;
it's a useful extension to the current user renaming system which
would allow beaucrats to rename active users in good standing to
already existing but totally unused (no edits or actions of any sort)
accounts.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of usernames which have never
been used in the slightest, and a lot of good short names have been
locked up because we don't allow them to be deleted or renamed to
something else (thus freeing up the original name). Quite a few users
have specifically asked for this despite the dim prospects; something
like 30 by now, I think.
Anyway, the proposals has gotten a fair bit of support, but it doesn't
seem to have been commented on by a lot of people, so the bureaucrats
I've talked to, like Essjay, aren't willing to simply declare it
policy or guideline because they are worried the community doesn't
really know about it. It'd be pretty good if people would go read it
and comment; it's rather unfortunate when good, consensus approved
proposals stagnate and die just because they don't reach whatever
magical number people are waiting for.
--Gwern
I've posted a version of this message to some other places to try to
drum up some interest or discussion. My apologies if you see this
multiple times.
"Steve Bennett" wrote
> And for navigational ability and visibility of related
> articles, nothing beats a navbox.
And the capacity to irritate people who can navigate without the intrusion, thank you all the same. One per article is quite enough, and often too many.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>> I glanced yesterday at a recent dictionary 'of phrase and fable',
>>> which had a Pokemon article.
>>
> It's amazing how pop culture articles make people squirm so much. I
> don't really do anything with them, but they have never bothered me.
> Pop culture is as important a part of culture as history or science.
> Naturally, we want to make sure that fictional characters aren't put
> forth as something more real than they are, If we confine
> ourselves to
> "scholarly treatment" it strikes me as though we would be putting
> on the
> same pompous airs of superiority that are often attrivbuted to
> ivory towers.
1) A "dictionary of phrase and fable" sounds like a _perfectly_ good
source for Wikipedia material.
2) I think that by definition an "encyclopedia" does _and must_ carry
a bit of what might be spun as "the same pompous airs of superiority
that are often attributed to ivory towers." Just as there are such
things as journalistic standards, we have a commitment to accuracy
that goes beyond what is required of USENET postings and web forums.
Any dedication to standards seems pompous to those who do not share it.
3) What makes me squirm about pop culture articles is their general
low quality, lack of references, and air of inexperience. I think a
good deal of them are being written from personal expertise. The edit
wars I see on some of them convince me that these self-appointed
experts have quite different opinions about the supposed content of
the supposed canon, and the reader has no way to know which is
correct. When people argue about the canon known as the Bible, they
customarily cite chapter and verse. So, for that matter, do
Holmesians. So should... what should I call them? Pokemonitors?
4) I do think that the "distanced" tone with which, say, Homeric
mythology, and folklore are conveyed, is very misleading. (It doesn't
help that a lot of it was filtered through Victorian English
translations).
I think a lot of this stuff was pop culture in its time. I suspect
the ancients regarded Mars or Apollo in a way that is much closer to
the way we regard Superman or Batman than to the way we regard the
characters of Wagner's operas.
Homer was a superstar performer, and he probably riffed on his lyre
like Bruce Springsteen. I've always heard that educated Greeks did
not believe the gods and goddesses were real. I suspect the less
educated ones may have had a degree of belief that was like the
degree of belief that fans of professional wrestling have in their
sport.
I assume I'm not the only person who, as an adolescent, discovered a
passage in the Odyssey, which, for some reason was not part of our
assigned reading in class. The one about how Hephaestus catches Ares
and Aphrodite making love. Literally catches them at it. Traps them.
Nude. In a contraption of metal chains. Then calls all the gods and
goddess to come and see them. Who stand around admiring Aphrodite and
making coarse jokes. I'll bet I'm not the only adolescent that
thought that was pretty hot. Did I mention that they were chained up
nude, in the act, and exhibited to a crowd of acquaintances? Nude?
On 30 Nov 2006 at 22:29, "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Discussing everything and achieving community concensus, rather than
> acting on the instinct of one particular user, is a tenant of
> Wikipedia.
A tenant of Wikipedia? How high is the rent?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 30 Nov 2006 at 22:15, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Not that you actually asked, but that would be the Republican party.
> IIRC, GOP stands for "Grand Old Party".
Which is bizarre, given that it's actually the newer of the two major
parties.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Ray Saintonge wrote
> Pop culture is as important a part of culture as history or science.
I doubt even the Beatles will have the long-term consequences of Crick-Watson. Pop culture is the bunch of sticks that makes flimsy individual elements into something with a higher breaking point.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Hi I just signed up for this list and I would like to thank you for accepting my registration.
Helene Goldnadel
http://www.HeleneGoldnadel.com
International Creative Artists
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
On 12/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists
> in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
Cats are superior? Since when??
One of the interesting differences is their role in the actual process
of organising information (as opposed to the end result). Categories
are good when you spot a similarity between a number of articles and
want to start formalising that link. Lists are good when you see a
need for a set of related articles that don't yet exist.
Both are ok for allowing navigation through sets of related articles,
but IMHO navigation boxes are much, much better.
Incidentally, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2004 edition on CD) seems to
use hierarchical lists as its preferred method: At the bottom of an
article, you get a list with varying levels of indentation. Clicking
on an item takes you to another article guaranteed to have that same
list. It works pretty well!
Steve
On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:21:21 -0500
> >
> >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >On 11/30/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> > > > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] GNAA Deleted!
> > > > > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:32:21 -0500
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >I'd just like to remind people that Wikipedia was doing quite well in the
> >Age Before Required Sourcing.
> >
> >You may consider yourself a specialist "in well-sourced articles on
> topics
> >for which such sources exist" but don't tar me with that same brush.
> >
> >You use the words "we" and "us" a bit too cavalierly, I think. Wikipedia
> is
> >healthiest when it allows any number of motivations for contributors,
> >rather
> >than enforcing a Platonic model of the
> >perfect Wikipedian.
>
> You're reading a bit more into my words than I ever intended, but I'll lay
> off on the idealistic "we". I don't think Wikipedia is healthier without
> sourcing, but I'll allow for disagreement there. What we're dealing with
> is
> a conflict of visions of what Wikipedia ought to be. Do we strive for
> completeness and inclusiveness or for better sourcing and higher quality
> coverage? I identify more with the drive for quality, and I'm comfortable
> looking elsewhere for certain topics, which can't be covered in the way I
> think Wikipedia should.
Oh, I do think Wikipedia is healthier with sourcing. But I think you're
right -- I identify more with completeness than for restrictiveness. I think
the idea that quality and completeness have to be oppositional is a false
dilemma. I do believe that the current trend of mega-articles does grossly
exacerbate that conflict.