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

The Original Barnstar
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]
Awarded: 19:53, Saturday June 14, 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Photobucket

Thanks for fixing the references on Photobucket. I was the one who added the references, without the proper formatting (because I didn't know what it was). Would you mind explaining to me how to use the tags properly, so I can do it myself in the future? Thanks! Paul Haymon 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Paul Haymon 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Vandalism studies' Study 2

Hi Jonathan! Your name was in the volunteers' section of Study 2, and I wanted to let you know we settled on the Random Edits idea (which you supported). We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack Talk 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack Talk 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Techcrunch.gif

Hello Jonathan Stokes, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Techcrunch.gif) was found at the following location: User:Jonathan Stokes/TechCrunch Compromise. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:GainesPolicePhoto.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:GainesPolicePhoto.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LogoGigaOM.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:LogoGigaOM.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Swartz/Wikipedia

You say he is a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, and point to the list of people who have the most edits, but don't say which one of those Wikipedians is him. I don't see an "aaronsw", "aswartz" or the like on that list. Can you please clarify/document? Josephgrossberg 03:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Female philosophers

Why do you believe that it is appropriate to have a category for female philosophers? My immediate reaction, as a female philosopher is to feel slightly insulted and indignent. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on gender based categories:

Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.) (See Category talk:Singers by gender for details on female and male singers by nationality categories.)

I left the Indian women philosophers alone when I saw it because I do not know enough about the situation in India to know whether it is appropriate/encyclopedic. I do not think that it is appropriate in a more general sense. Anarchia 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)