Wikipedia talk:Wikipediology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Since I've no other place to put this, I feel like saying that I finished my first essay. It's about teenage wikipedians, reviews appreciated :) Now I'm off to write an essay on anon vandalism. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 20:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And I've finished my second essay. It's on anon editors. Comments appreciated either here or at my talk page. Thanks :D Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Holy crap

I thought that I was undertaking an ambitious project but this, this really takes the cake guys. Keep up the good fight ya'll. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 01:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

Ought we move this to Wikipedia:Wikipediology? --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It would certainly make it easier to link to; if we reach a consensus to move it, I will take care of all the links. - Pureblade | ☼ 03:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

Founs typos on the front page, not sure if I am allowed to correct them though, I leave it to the founder.. Gryffindor 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And I found a typo in your comment :P Seriously, the founders are wikipedians, so I think he will be happy if you fix his typos :D (hope I'm right) Karol 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and corrected the typos that I found. There's really no way that anyone should be offended by someone correcting simple spelling errors. It's the spirit of Wikipedia, after all. - Pureblade | ☼ 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Note on Deference

No one should feel that they shouldn't correct typos or other minor changes to the page. Changes to the pages don't require my approval; a general consensus reached among a majority of fellows or approval by a majority of Regents is all that is needed to make major changes to the project main page. Being bold works quite well in the article space, but on a project it's important to remember that we are working with others and should take their ideas and opinions into account before making radical or major changes to the page that represents the project and thus its participants.

I hope that I may be indulged to elaborate on a related topic by my good friends here. I have become aware of some concern about my “authoritarian” tendencies and a developing reputation as the “voice of needless bureaucracy,” through an acutely derisive e-mail, from a user who shall remain anonymous.

Babajobu’s recent satire aside, I am not nor do I ever intend to be a caudillo, issuing orders by fiat and expecting such arrogance to be obeyed, and while no one has stated or implied that on this page—I want to make this point perfectly clear. Leaders cannot exist without followers who approve of and augment there ideas and only a foolish leader would believe that their importance derives from anything more than the people who have vested confidence in them.

No one should feel that being the founder of this organization begets any special privileges or deference. I have not sought to be called a founder of Wikipediology or Esperanza, not that I reject that honorific title mind you— my rather sizable ego quite enjoys it. Wikipedia has only one person who should be treated with special deference, Jimbo.

I apologize if this essay was a diversion too far off topic, but I felt that it needed to be said. As always, your thoughts are appreciated. -JCarriker 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A comment

The library should be cleaned up, doesn't it? Anyway, it's an interesting project to have such an Institute. --Neigel von Teighen 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the deal with all of that AMA stuff? I had no idea that we were at all affiliated with them. I'm going to move all that to a subpage, but I don't believe it really belongs here. - Pureblade | ☼ 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of essay pages

First, I would like to say that this is a great project. It's a fun read, and I find the essays quite informative and thought provoking. I would like to question the naming of the essay pages, though. The page name Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/Merovingian-1 is not very informative, and it is impossible to sort out in Category:Wikipedia essays. Why not name the essays by their title? For the Merovingian essay above, we could use Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/The Fluid Encyclopedia, sorting the category by "Fluid Encyclopedia". Alternatively, you could get rid of the extra levels of organization and call it Wikipedia:The Fluid Encyclopedia. — BrianSmithson 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, except I don't think that Wikipdedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/HowManyArticlesDoesWikipediaReallyHave is a very good way of linking things. Perhaps a merging of the two systems, having the author and a one or two word summarization of the aricle, such as Wikipedia:Wikipediology/library/essays/R.fiend-Articles or R.fiend-HowManyArticles, or something like that. - Pureblade | Θ 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with the first option if you use piping? eg how many Wikipedia articles? Rd232 talk 10:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I notice not a lot has gone on recently; I hope I have not returned only to find the organization gone stagnant. I do have a couple of questions that I'd like to put forth, and if anybody is still watching, please offer up an answer.

  1. Is it in poor taste to edit one's own wikibio? I'd like to polish mine up and redirect its focus, but I'm afraid that might be considered gauche. Thoughts?
  2. Just from having checked things over, I notice that there is one regent's seat open, and also that an election was due to take place this month. Do we intend to act on that?

Thanks to any who can be of help. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like for this organization to become more active; it's a very good idea, and I don't want it to fade into obscurity. As for your questions:
  1. Proofreading and correcting blatant errors would be fine, I'm sure; not certain about major additions or changes, but I'd say go ahead, since wikibios don't seem to be very actively edited as of yet.
  2. I hadn't noticed that; I'll set up a page right away and notify all listed members. Thanks for reminding us of that.

- Pureblade | Θ 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, this begs a new question: I was a fellow from the begining, but removed myself when I left in November. I just realized yesterday that I hadn't reinserted myself on my return and so yesterday I did just that. Do I qualify to stand for the election? Also, Maltmamma resigned (her?) regency in addition to Jmabel's coming up for election; am I correct in assuming two seats will be open? Essjay Talk • Contact 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that anyone who added themselves to the fellows list before I put the election notice up are eligible to run/vote in the elections. I'm not sure how we would fill Maltmomma's spot; have a temporary regent until September, or have someone run for it? - Pureblade | Θ 19:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See, that is why I was wondering; the requirements say "a member for four months." As for Maltmomma's spot, I'd say whomever comes in second takes her seat until the term is up. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election

I've noticed that the election has been ongoing for almost ten days, and has had no activity whatsoever; am I to assume the project has died? Essjay Talk • Contact 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems so; you and I have been the only ones doing anything in the last month or so, so I suppose there's not much point in trying to do much more with it. - Pureblade | Θ 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakeup

The new board consists of Exir Kamalabadi, Guettarda, Jmabel, JCarriker, Pureblade, and Titoxd have accepted positions on the committee; SylwiaS and Mamawrites were extended invitations but did not respond before April 14th. Thanks, for your patience. This new larger board of regents that will rewrite our government, and submit that to approval by the general fellowship. If the fellowship approves it, the regents will serve out their terms. The board is designed to be less reflective of Wikipedia’s systemic bias than the general community or the fellowship, less Anglo-amerocentric and feminine than the community is, though I am disappointed no woman accepted a position on the board. There is no quota system, individuals are still selected on the basis of merit. While it is impossible to completely remove systemic bias from a project initiated by wikipedia, it is my hope that through elevating people who naturally have a worldview different from that of the wiki-majority we can create a resource that is as unbiased as possible and more appreciative of views that differ from the young white middle class males that make up most of Wikipedia’s population, but not the worlds'. Such a system is not desirable for the larger community, but may be beneficial to a subproject, such as ours, that has a limited scope. Thanks. -JCarriker 07:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New charter

The board needs to discuss what should change about itself and the project:

  • how future appointments to the board should be made
  • the nature and duration of a term on the board
  • the process for removing a board member
  • how and when to replace a board member (through absence or resignation)
  • how much the board can or should moderate systemic bias within our project.
  • how/who/what should coordinate the board
  • how should the board coordinate the project

Please begin discussion below. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Is anyone going to respond? Por favor, alguien contesta mi post. Puis-je demander que vous repondez à ma post. -JCarriker 06:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My birthday was on the 17th, so I've been offline most of the day. I'll get my thoughts up soon, though. - Pureblade | Θ 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been looking at this page since Sunday; I was trying to figure out where to start. I gather that the problem with the old method was the no one showed up for the election, right? Do you think that was a function of there being a lack of participation in IW in general, or do you think it was because of the nature of the board (ie, people weren't sure what it did or was supposed to do)? Guettarda 11:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that it is proabably a bit of both. The board needs more definition, and it then needs to take a role in inspiring wikipedian's to contributions to this project. -JCarriker 20:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to tackle these in the order they're listed above.

  • If we're just talking about the next board, I think we should have elections. If members of the current board quit the wiki or resign, I think the rest of the board should vote on a fellow to induct in the leaving member's place.
  • I believe a position on the board should last an even year, say from May to May, starting with this board. A position on the board should grant the member right to have a vote in the election of regents and major changes to our mission or pages.
  • If a member becomes clearly argumentative, a majority vote of at leat 4, assuming we have 6, will be required to expel him from the board. If there is truly a problem, this should be passed easily.
  • See bullet #1.
  • We should moderate it to the best of our ability.
  • I think that the first board should coordinate the procedures and positions, etc., to be followed by the proceeding boards.
  • We should coordinate the project by rewarding editors for good essays, and finding new writers of essays and by approving essay submissions and revising our main page as it becomes nessecary.

Just my two cents. - Pureblade | Θ 16:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Wikipediology?

Hi! Is this a religion? I first thought that Wikipediology is something about scientific study of Wikipedia but I cannot find no science but fellows, regents (Ñ,Ç,Ж) and essays full of speculations – it more looks like a sect. What do you really want to achieve? Sorry guys but I don't know what to think about this project. It just confirms my experience of beeing more than 2 years active in Wikipedia research: research from within the community is not scientific enough and research from outside is not practical enough. But it's getting better. If you know more scientific works on Wikipedia just let me know to include it in the bibliography. -- Nichtich 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I know that when I first dropped by not a few days ago I initially shared some of your impressions, but then I realized people aren't born as adults and neither are groups. The best way to make sure that this grows into what you think it should be is to contribute. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikipediology_97af.html"