I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware
of it.
As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though:
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political process.
I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to
come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote
political or social campaigns.
There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay.
Andreas
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 20:21
I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia
article shoots to the top of Google
searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here?
I'm pretty
sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even
if they lack
templates and are practically orphans.
Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then
goes and
creates associated templates. I don't do much with
templates but I
have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British
Museum for the
Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of
edits to
articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard.
I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating
into some
sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using
it for off
wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual
wikipedians
who may not be subscribing to this list is in my view
unhealthy.
Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that
editor notified
them of this thread?
WereSpielChequers
On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Let's just delete articles we don't
like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
You see, I question whether if fulfils any
encyclopedic (rather than
Googlebombing) purpose to list
"santorum" in a nav
template of 100 political neologisms, and you come
back with
quips like that, and accuse people of
wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good
Faith, in capital letters:
"You are ascribing motive to Cirt's
activities. Assume
Good Faith.").
Incidentally, I just noticed the following
conversation on the political
neologisms template's talk page:
---o0o---
==Shouldn't this be a category?==
I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would
anyone looking at (say)
Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article
about
Soccer mom? Surely, this
is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11
May
2011 (UTC)
:It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists
and political scholars
would indeed wish to navigate through these
articles.
-- Cirt (talk) 08:47,
11 May 2011 (UTC)
::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you
have a template on
'words invented since 1973'? Bastin
09:31, 11 May 2011
(UTC)
:::Because they are of interest to those studying the
subject matter from
the perspective of many different varied fields.
--
Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11
May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
---o0o---
"Most useful". A category doesn't add any in-bound
links. And that
was the
end of that conversation.
Andreas
> On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
> >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> >
> >> I don't want to get that clever, to the
point that
> we take
> >> into account
> >> that even talking about the article on
this list
> might
> >> affect ranking.
> >> What is needed is to improve the article;
it is
> about a
> >> political act,
> >> not about lube.
> >
> >
> > If it's about the political act, it should be
covered
> under [[Santorum
> > controversy regarding homosexuality]].
> >
> > Linguistically -- the term has been included
in one
> dictionary, and in one
> > book on neologisms. Some erotic books have
used it
> (and we have gleefully
> > included full quotes from each in the
article's
> references:
> >
> > "She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a
trickle of
> santorum from her
> > ass, and throws it under the cot."
> >
> > "Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes
that
> seemed to the panting
> > Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than
ever before.
> At each descent of
> > the pouncing big prick into her sanctum
santorum,
> Valerie thrust upward with
> > all her strength until the velvety surfaces
of her
> rotund naked buttocks
> > swung clear of the bed"
> >
> > "Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed
his
> blood-lubed fist straight up
> > my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and
licked the
> santorum clean.")
> >
> > Is that enough for linguistic notability?
Perhaps
> enough for a Wiktionary
> > entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide
*linguistic*,
> encyclopedic grounds?
> >
> > As for the template use:
> >
> > Including the term in *both* the sexual slang
template
> and the political
> > neologisms template, both custom-created for
the
> occasion, seems a stretch
> > to me.
> >
> > It is not a "political neologism", rightfully
listed
> along with terms like
> >
> > Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • "And"
theory of
> conservatism • Big
> > government • Chairman • Checkbook
diplomacy •
> Children's interests •
> > Collaborationism • Conviction politics •
Cordon
> sanitaire • Cricket test •
> > Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism
•
> Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism •
> > Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere
•
> Failed state • etc.
> >
> > in a 100-term template, causing it to appear
in all of
> those articles.
> >
> > Listing it in the sexual slang template,
based on less
> than a dozen
> > appearances in print as an actual word -- as
opposed
> to reporting about
> > Dan Savage's campaign -- is a closer call,
but still
> debatable.
> >
> > I don't like Santorum either, and sorry to be
a
> spoil-sport, but it's
> > unworthy of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
visit:
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l