User talk:Jonathan Stokes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Hello World
Hi. Jonathan Stokes 08:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Jonathan
Good to hear from you. You're right; "Wiki abuse and vandalism is just like real life abuse and vandalism. The most effective treatment is Broken Windows Theory." Well I don't care what the hell its called so long as it works. So okay, now what? Where do we go from here? Fergananim 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fergananim, I only wish I knew! I blogged about the Wikipedia is failing essay here. And I blogged about Larry Sanger's Wikipedia-competition site, Citizendium, here. There definitely seems to be a growing sentiment that Wikipedia needs a policy overhaul.
- As for Broken windows theory, I used to employ this as a school teacher. As soon as one kid gets slightly distracted, you gently remind them to pay attention. Teachers who maintain this vigilance have quiet classrooms. Wikipedia is sometimes like a classroom where the teacher has left the room, and everyone is out of hand! Particularly with Jimmy gone, there is a vacuum of leadership.
- As I mentioned, I have an unfair advantage in dealing with abuse on my own wiki, because it is not a democracy. I can swiftly ban any link spammer or malicious editor without submitting to a long review process or a cuchy-coo warning system...spamming is spamming! Maybe this sounds a bit rough, but I do like to think I am a benevolent dictator...
- I'm no expert, but I might propose annually electing special Admins and giving them power to warn and ban users much more swiftly, and at their own discretion. Watchdogs can keep an eye out for any overly zealous admins. This system may seem harsh, but the essence of Broken Windows Theory (which has made New York the safest city in America, per capita) is that you have to swiftly and sternly correct even minor infractions to create a culture of respect. Jonathan Stokes 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedians by Politics
Jonathan, I'm flattered by your proposal. You can publish my finding where ever you want you credit me by user:c_mon. I will publish my data set in my user space (user:c_mon/wikipedians by politics). There is one major warning about my methodology, since my sample is so small and especially the number of wikipedians who express a political view is so small, the findings are not reliable. My main conclusion would be: wikipedians choose not to express their political view and any conclusion about the nature of these political views is secondary.
Since there are so many wikipedians, it might be worth it to expand my sample. The result could be very interesting for the m:Wikipedia sociology. I will try to pursue that, just out of fascination to see who wikipedians are. C mon 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- No thank you! I don't think my professors would agree with "rigorous and impressive" but who cares when one's research gets published. C mon 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TechCrunch mediation
You asked offline about the mediation case -- below is the notice I have posted to the talk pages of the editors involved. 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 |
Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/TechCrunch | |
| Talk:TechCrunch |
There is now an active WP:Mediation Cabal case to resolve whether or not the "criticisms" in the TechCruch article should or should not remain. As one of the editors participating in the matter, you are invited to help in the resolution. For more info please follow above links.
- I have reverted the article yet again in response to the wikipedia vandal who keeps restoring the "criticism" section in violation of the mediation resolution. I note you've reported this case to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Any way to follow this to see if they do anything? Wikidemo 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I commented in the community portal. However, I'm not clear on what they could do anyway. I'm not sure how the requests for moderation against vandalism works. There are so many requests that a new one quickly falls off the page, and then they archive them every week. I'm not sure how one can follow the request to make sure someone is taking action. The user hasn't reverted today so perhaps they are going to go away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch
Good morning (GMT time); further to your question at the above page, enquiring if editors should proceed to "..edit down..." the criticism section of the article, TechCrunch (talk), I have posted a compromise, mostly on your request, at the "Compromises" section of the MedCabal case page, linked above.
You are invited to participate in determining consensus of the compromise posted, by objecting to or agreeing with the proposal.
Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Award
For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Jonathan Stokes the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk]
[edit] WikiProject on Vandalism studies Study 1 is complete.
The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy of the conclusions can be found here).
The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.
Currently the project is working on a related study, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study, and is also beginning to draft up the parameters of our second major study (see Study 2). If you are still interested in our work (your name is on the participant's list), please participate in our efforts to help create a solid understanding of vandalism and information on wikipedia by contributing to discussions of past studies or by helping plan up and coming ones. Thanks. JoeSmack Talk 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
