Category talk:Conservative Wikipedians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] What is this category for?
This category has been used twice in the last week for internal spamming. What encyclopedic value does this category have, that would justify its existence as part of an encyclopedia? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Identifying users who are interested in articles about conservatism and politics. It helps to find new recruits for wikiprojects. Aaрон Кинни (t) 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The question is: Why was this cat marked for deletion?
If some feel that this category doesn’t belong here and it gets deleted, then this will set the “standard” for what cat will get deleted next. Let’s start with the other end of the spectrum – the Category:Liberal Wikipedians shall be marked for deletion next (that would only be fair, after all). Hmmm.. what will follow that…...? There are numerous cats for the other end of the political view, but only few for the conservative end. I do not want this to turn into a personal attack or start an edit war.
I will not mention any user names, but it seems to me that someone was biased and wants to eliminate references to the WIKI community that does not think like they do. But, that is what I perceived from this. Let us all take the advice of Jimbo Wales and just get along. JungleCat 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your post. Why would it be right to start from either "end of the spectrum"? I still don't know what any of these political categories are good for. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Your comment was correct on the vote page (per my opinion) and sums up what I am getting at. Why target the conservative cat and not the liberal cat as well? It's all a bias to target just one cat. BTW, should we delete cat's with Taco Bell eaters, users who prefer the death penalty, etc. etc. These cats are all nonsense unless you consider that the WIKI community uses these for humor, ways to relate to others, etc. BTW, I do not support the deletion of user cats. JungleCat 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can see why you'd think that it's a ruse to just delete one category, but you're incorrect. I don't care that much about conservativism versus liberalism, but I care about Wikipedia, and I noticed that this particular category was used twice in the last week for so-called "vote-stacking" disruptions. That's why it's being singled out right now, however incorrectly and prone to misinterpretation that is. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- GT, can we not warn the participants doing "vote stacking" rather than do something so drastric as delete a category? Whether certain admins want to admit it or not, it helps to have people of different views and backgrounds on articles. This is a place where one can post items of interest to people that want to contribute to them. Currently, any representation at all of the conservative perspective on NPOV is lacking in many articles. Conservatives can be NPOV too, and posting an article in need of work can help when an article is being overrun with anti-conservative POV-bias. Again, this is not calling for edit warring, it is calling for balance. DavidBailey 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anybody claim that it doesn't help to have poeple of different views and backgrounds on articles. I would certainly agree that diversity is important, and to be celebrated. Also, I'm not asking that conservatives be treated any differently from anyone else. I said it was incorrect for this category to be singled out. I do think all of the ideological categories should go away because they're misguided. That shouldn't be the structure that holds us together - the articles should be that. If you're interested in some topic, because of your political views, subscribe to that article, and be involved in it. If you need to get input from more Libertarians, drop off a note at Talk:Libertarianism. Maybe even pop over to Portal:Politics. Using categories like we have now makes it seem as if which side you've picked on some issue is more representative of who you are as a Wikipedian than which articles you watch and contribute to, and what projects you join and work with, which is bizarre to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is knowing about the articles to contribute to. Sometimes, you're interested in an article, but you aren't aware it's there. Also, I've seen people accused of spamming for dropping a note into an unrelated article asking for help on another one. There needs to be a place to discuss issues related to a specific train of political ideas. Not because only people of that political ideology will be there, but because anyone interested in that political idealogy can follow those topics of interest. I don't think its wrong to organize Wikipedia by articles, but I also don't think its wrong to encourage participation, assuming that such participation follows Wikipedia policies, in any fashion by any group. If the issue is that Wikipedia can't handle more than X number of editors on an article, I'd say that's a current shortcoming of Wikipedia, not a reason to limit the number of ways to locate articles of interest. DavidBailey 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's true that you can't immediately find all the articles in an area you're interested in, but that's a good thing. If you move to a new town, you get oriented gradually, and build up your own personal map, and assimilate things at a rate that's comfortable to you. There's a lot of misunderstanding that flows from failing to recognize that Wikipedia has a different culture than we're used to off of the Wiki, and that there's learning that you have to allow to happen. We could communicate this better - other Wikis manage to do so.
- Taking the time to look for articles you're interested in is a good way to learn your way around, how to navigate the categories, and "what links here", and also a chance to read a lot of articles and start to internalize some elements of Wikipedia style.
- As for there needing to be a place where people can discuss specific issues, in a more general setting than particular articles, that's what Wiki-projects and Portals are for. Are you in any WikiProjects? Watching a few project pages will plug you into a whole world, if it's an active project. Also, what's wrong with watching Portal:Politics and related pages? Does it have sub-Portals for more specific topics? I don't know, maybe it does, maybe it should. Wouldn't that be a good, and natural way to network? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is knowing about the articles to contribute to. Sometimes, you're interested in an article, but you aren't aware it's there. Also, I've seen people accused of spamming for dropping a note into an unrelated article asking for help on another one. There needs to be a place to discuss issues related to a specific train of political ideas. Not because only people of that political ideology will be there, but because anyone interested in that political idealogy can follow those topics of interest. I don't think its wrong to organize Wikipedia by articles, but I also don't think its wrong to encourage participation, assuming that such participation follows Wikipedia policies, in any fashion by any group. If the issue is that Wikipedia can't handle more than X number of editors on an article, I'd say that's a current shortcoming of Wikipedia, not a reason to limit the number of ways to locate articles of interest. DavidBailey 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anybody claim that it doesn't help to have poeple of different views and backgrounds on articles. I would certainly agree that diversity is important, and to be celebrated. Also, I'm not asking that conservatives be treated any differently from anyone else. I said it was incorrect for this category to be singled out. I do think all of the ideological categories should go away because they're misguided. That shouldn't be the structure that holds us together - the articles should be that. If you're interested in some topic, because of your political views, subscribe to that article, and be involved in it. If you need to get input from more Libertarians, drop off a note at Talk:Libertarianism. Maybe even pop over to Portal:Politics. Using categories like we have now makes it seem as if which side you've picked on some issue is more representative of who you are as a Wikipedian than which articles you watch and contribute to, and what projects you join and work with, which is bizarre to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- GT, can we not warn the participants doing "vote stacking" rather than do something so drastric as delete a category? Whether certain admins want to admit it or not, it helps to have people of different views and backgrounds on articles. This is a place where one can post items of interest to people that want to contribute to them. Currently, any representation at all of the conservative perspective on NPOV is lacking in many articles. Conservatives can be NPOV too, and posting an article in need of work can help when an article is being overrun with anti-conservative POV-bias. Again, this is not calling for edit warring, it is calling for balance. DavidBailey 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can see why you'd think that it's a ruse to just delete one category, but you're incorrect. I don't care that much about conservativism versus liberalism, but I care about Wikipedia, and I noticed that this particular category was used twice in the last week for so-called "vote-stacking" disruptions. That's why it's being singled out right now, however incorrectly and prone to misinterpretation that is. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment was correct on the vote page (per my opinion) and sums up what I am getting at. Why target the conservative cat and not the liberal cat as well? It's all a bias to target just one cat. BTW, should we delete cat's with Taco Bell eaters, users who prefer the death penalty, etc. etc. These cats are all nonsense unless you consider that the WIKI community uses these for humor, ways to relate to others, etc. BTW, I do not support the deletion of user cats. JungleCat 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help Pz
Just wondering, could any of u guys give me a hand with my rightist userboxes? --Boris Johnson VC 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
