On 30/01/2008, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 29, 2008 6:31 PM, Peter Ansell
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
People keep referring to a discussion that only
lasted a few hours as
evidence that the community supports the idea, as opposed to a few
admins who were alerted to the page, including the participants who
purchased the domain to use with wikimedia hosting. Wikipedia Cabals
are, perhaps surprisingly to you, totally irrelevant to the purpose of
the encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to host websites for people it
might as well say it instead of proclaiming the no free web hosting
statement as policy (except when its an admin who gets special
treatment). If this is meant to be simply ignored because its a joke
then it isn't succeeding.
Peter
What I'm saying is that this is no difference from, say,
[[User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal]] or any others on the list at [[WP:LOC]] (the
penguin one was just the first I scrolled to), just because some domain
redirects to it.
Okay, the most humourous WIkipedia space page that I have agreed with
so far is [[WP:ROUGE]], and even then not without extensive discussion
as to its relevance for giving people a view on the real reasons
admins have to do some things. That is relevant, cabals (true/untrue),
or discussions about them, are a totally irrelevant artifact that
doesn't help wikipedia at all. If there wasn't a cabal to keep
irrelevant cabal articles in wikipedia they would be subject to the
WP:NOT guidelines like other pages, but catch 22 says you can't see
the forest for the trees in this case. All of [[Category:Wikipedia
humor]] is irrelevant IMO. But there are enough people who want an
exception for humour to keep it in, and still avoid telling most
people that in WP:NOT a free webhost/social network.
I am not trying really to point this out as a case that should be
deleted while others in either WP:LOC or the humour category, are
kept. Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia first, and only community
for collaboration, not for making up clubs for people to join. Why was
it that Esperanza was deleted? (Not to bring it up as a specific
example relevant to this discussion of humourous cabal jokes, but it
was a big precedent for WP:NOT IMO) If Esperanza had been a humourous
cabal then it would have fit as a precedent of course, but it was too
transparent for that to occur by definition.
Peter