User talk:Aeropus I of Macedon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: your comments

Hi, Aeropus. At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson#The Return of Grecian Footwear, you [Aelius] said "I think you misunderstand my motivation. Its NOT Plausible Deniability." I can accept that; I think the problem that some other editors and I are having is that we don't understand what your motivation is. You've explained what it is not; could you please explain what it is? Why are you creating public accounts? Why do you think they are helpful, especially given the extra work it would take to maintain them as you describe?

As I see it, there are many disadvantages to a public account (like vandalism) but I can see no advantages. Could you help me understand your reasoning behind these accounts? Perhaps we can find a mutually acceptable solution. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In real life there is a consensus NOT to steal the 10000 dollars you have found in the middle of the road, and the one who steals those dollars should be punished, if caught. And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit. They are very usefull, primarily because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego, especially the whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day. Thats why I believe there is consensus among healthy wikipedians to protect guest accounts and maybe punish any whimsical wikipedian writer who may change the guest account's password because of hate or any other pathological reason. Aeropus I of Macedon 06:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aeropus, thanks for your reply. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning. I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more help, though. I don't understand how a public account would obliterate someone's ego. If a certain Wikipedian takes pride in his work, if he is proud of article's he's written or other contributions he's made, how will your public account affect his ego in any way? I can't see the connection. Thank you for bearing with me and I look forward to your explanation. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its not mainly about pride, it is mostly about self-advertisement and self-promotion. If you use a public account, you may keep your secret pride for yourself but your are not advertising yourself, and this humbleness obliterates your inflated ego. Most of the people that are using private accounts tend to get axioms like electors, administrators, arbitrators e.t.c. The more axioms they get, the more their ego inflates. In the other hand, anonymous users are not realy anonymous as long as they often use a static IP adress which is equivalent to a private account. Even in case someone uses a dynamic IP, there is still a reason to use public accounts and this is because public accounts are by definition NPOV (while private accounts or static or dynamic IPs writings are by definition POV). If you love NPOV, talking through a public account is the best thing you can do. Dont forget to mention also that public accounts often play a specific role (role accounts), and this unites people together, it forms their community better and help them to reach a common goal. Public accounts is a matter of taste, after all, and I dont think they are real danger for wikipedia, especially if they are created in front of everybody eyes and not secretely. Aeropus I of Macedon 09:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your continuing this dialogue. I understand that those who are willing to use a public account give up any identification with their work and that would certainly be a sign of humility. However, I see no reason why those with "inflated egos" would use such a public account. As I see it, if their egos are really inflated, then they will continue to use their personal account, and those who use the public accounts are already "ego-less" to begin with. I don't see how having a public account would affect the users with inflated egos, since their egos would preclude them from using them. In short, while inflated egos may be a bad thing, I do not believe this system would work to change that. Furthermore, while users without egos may be willing to edit under a public account due to their humility, I think most would refrain because it somewhat interferes with the way Wikipedia works.

Thats exactly the point. For example, have a look at public encyclopedias, IMHPO they contain quality work, thats why private encyclopedias hate them. The same happens with public accounts, due to their nature they also create quality writings, thats why private accounts hate them and want them to be prohibited. We, the public accounts, we dont hate private accounts and we let them live with their inflated ego. The private accounts hate us, and they dont let us live also. Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By each person having a separate account, it makes it easier to see the patterns of people's contributions and if they are vandalizing, revert all their edits. If everyone used the same account, or even if many people did, it would be difficult to sort out the good edits from the bad.

We dont care to see the paterns, and in case of vandalizing a public account it is mych easier to revert than vandalizing fromprivate, as long as public accounts are watched by more than one persons. Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now you mention that registered users may be elected to positions like administrators and arbitrators. I am not sure how this is relevant. Are you saying that you think positions like these are bad and that everyone (that is, the public account) should have the same powers? That no one should block or everyone should be able to? Your previous comments (as the Faethons) seem to imply that you value the administrators' role in fighting vandalism.

I am a public account, so Faethon comments are not always mine. Yes, everyone should have the same powers. Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is a role account? I feel that creating an encyclopedia is our common goal here and that this unites us together. I don't understand how your public account would further that goal.

I am against imposed common goals. A common goals should never be imposed, and creating an encyclopedia is an imposed goal. Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that a private account is by definition point-of-view. Perhaps the person to whom the account belongs has specific points of view, or perhaps the edits from the account do. These are separate matters: while I of course have points of view, I would hope that my article contributions reflect a neutral point of view. I don't think that public accounts are NPOV or even that all their edits are NPOV, certainly not by definition. For instance, the edits from the Faethon, et al. public accounts would seem to be highly POV in favor of public accounts.

No they are not POV in favor of public accounts. Have a look, and you will find edits against them. For example once someone said through a public account that advertising public accounts should be prohibited. Is this in favor of public accounts? Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that this is necessarily bad, but your using a public account does not appear to have produced all neutral comments. I do think that the NPOV policy is important, but only as it applies to articles. I see no reason that an individual account should be NPOV; that is, I don't see why a mixture of edits from different points of view coming out of one account is any better than those coming from separate accounts. In fact, I think the latter is preferable since it means that those with differing points of view can easily communicate with one another to help resolve their differences, as we are doing now. If we were both were using the same account, which we shared with many other users, it would be very difficult to have this conversation. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course we can talk through a public account. Try it. It is much better. Aeropus II of Macedon 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 11:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)