User talk:Crotalus horridus/Abolishing userboxes considered harmful

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the discussion

To be fair, the content isn't so much about how userboxes help build the encyclopedia, as it is about how trying to delete them doesn't help either. I've seen people making arguments that userboxes are actively helpful. Perhaps this page should incorporate some of that. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment, this essay strikes an "it's too late to go back" tone, but (to me) doesn't put forth an affirmative argument. Anville 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] An Excellent Essay!

I am in complete agreement. I would like to propose adding the following points:

  • 1) While supporters of deletion claim some userboxes are "inflammatory and devisive" and worry about their effect on the wikicommunity, there seem to be very few users who are offended based simply on a POV express one puts on one's userpage. In practice, edits negatively affecting the wikicommunity come either from edits to actual articlespace or what one puts on another's User:TalkPage, not one's own.
  • 2) POV Userboxes let users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe.
  • 3) The policy of forbidding usersboxes on userpages that espouse an especially strong POV without further banning prose expressions of the same will not prevent the supposed "inflammatory and devisive" effects they have.

Note: I don't propose they be added word-for-word like this. I merely tried to describe these points on this page but their wording should be improved for the actual essay. I'm happy to allow someone else do that.  :-) Lawyer2b 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, how do userboxes help build the encyclopaedia?

I was hoping this essay would explain the case for userboxes. Instead, it is a restatement of instruction creep. A better title would be "Abolishing userboxes considered harmful". Which gives me an idea...Stevage 17:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please move these essays to your userspace?

They're personal statements that probably belong in userspace. Thanks - David Gerard 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What existing policy says about userboxes

From WP:NOT (What Wikipedia Is Not):

User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.

So your user page is about you, but in the context of your work on the project. I think this also captures what upset quite a lot of people about the spate of wiki games last year — it was Wikipedians doing it, but it was clearly nothing to do even slightly tangentially with writing an encyclopedia, so people got upset.

I think this is a good principle for userboxes too. I posted to wikien-l on the subject as well, using this test:

  • Babel boxes: yep.
  • Location boxes: yep.
  • Nationality boxes: probably. (I live in the UK but I can give an Australian perspective, at least as of 2002.)
  • Firefox/Opera/IE boxes: possibly (good for browser issues).
  • "du-1: This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration." - probably not as a template, which is why the one on my page is substed. But I put it there as a restatement of what I say a lot, that on Wikipedia working effectively with people you think are complete idiots is not optional.
  • "This user is a critic of Scientology." I probably wouldn't use this myself. It indicates an area of knowledge but also indicates a strong POV in a way that may unduly alienate other editors.
  • "This user is Catholic." I don't think this passes the test. It states a POV but doesn't actually indicate a depth of knowledge.
  • "This user is a Jesuit priest." This might be useful - indicates a depth of knowledge as well as a belief - but would probably go better in the userpage text.
  • "This user is a pedophile" - um, no.

- David Gerard 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about what "experience has shown"

the unfortunate experience has shown us that it is far less damaging, divisive, and disruptive to "live and let live" than to attempt to fight many users on an issue that they feel very strongly about.

There's a fallacy here. The experience hasn't shown us what happens when userboxes are allowed to exist and multiply without controls. We can't say that they would not cause even greater problems that way than the "userbox wars" caused. In fact, the very basis of good-faith opposition to userboxes is that they are inherently damaging, and I'm not sure how one would compare that damage to the damage caused by the controversy. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)