Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've moved these comments over from the project page. –Pomte 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote of previous MfD

Allow me to dig up some stuff from previous MfDs
The following discussion is preserved as it was excerpted from a similar Miscellany for deletion debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section of the page.
  • Delete Wikipedia's main purpose is building an encyclopedia, not a community. The community's purpose is to build the encyclopedia; while I do believe that user pages do serve a purpose, I think that this sort of thing is too much like the old Esperanza, as ^demon said. Veinor (talk to me) 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's main purpose is building an encyclopedia, not a community - but who do you think builds the encyclopedia? We need the community, because we need to recruit and retain contributors. Allowing people to have a bit of fun is a good way to do that. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobody should be here just to give or receive barnstars, that's really not what we're about - that may be true in principle, but in practice the most important Wikipedia resource is our community of hardworking editors. Given that we're a voluntary project, we have to focus on recruiting and retaining contributors. If they're only here to be given barnstars, then at least they're editing. It doesn't matter what motivates a Wikipedian, as long as they're contributing, and if some people enjoy being given awards for their userpage, then stopping this is only likely to drive them away. WaltonOne 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per my arguments in the previous MfD. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with expansion in the metapedian, community-oriented side of Wikipedia. Plenty of editors will not contribute if they are expected to become faceless edit machines. That's why we have community-building content such as Template:Smile, WP:MOTD, and WP:FUN. It encourages users (particularly younger users, though I'm wary of stereotypes) to stick around and contribute constructively, when they might not otherwise do so. Furthermore, other users on the previous MfD brought up a number of valid points, which I urge everyone to take into account:
    • Working on userpages has helped people to understand wikicode better and use such in articles at least a little bit. Wikipedia is a community, not just an encyclopaedia and user pages are an integral part of what makes us what we are. A little competition about it all isn't problematic and it encourages people to stay here when they might otherwise become disillusioned. That benefits the project.
    • It's just a way to get away from a conflict, create a nice, informative userpage, which ultimately helps Wikipedia, and then go back to editing instead of fighting, attacking, vandalizing, and leaving Wikipedia because of the stress.
    • Editing is not a zero-sum game. If someone makes fewer edits to userspace, they will not necessarily make that many more other edits. So, it's just a bit of fun.
  • On the basis of building a community, therefore, we should keep this page. Allowing people to have a bit of fun will not prevent them from editing; in fact, it will help to attract and retain contributors, who are our encyclopedia's most important resource. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This page has survived a recent MfD nomination: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest. I remind everyone that per WP:CCC, consensus can change; the more recent MfD result overrides the older Esperanza one. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is a rock farm. You came here to work, not to muck about doing "playful things" and "having fun" - there are OUTSIDE sources for this. Here the ethics are work, work, work, on building an encyclopedia that anyone can use. And Marx was right; individuality gets in the way of a working environment.--WaltCip 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I question the validity of any argument based on Marxism. :-) More to the point, I strongly disagree with the idea that "individuality gets in the way of a working environment". Quite the opposite; plenty of editors will not contribute if they are forced to abandon their individuality and become faceless edit machines. That's why we have community-building content such as Template:Smile, WP:MOTD, and WP:FUN. It encourages users (particularly younger users, though I'm wary of stereotypes) to stick around and contribute constructively, when they might not otherwise do so. WaltonOne 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I personally don't like the idea of the Wikimedia Foundation, a registered charity, paying hosting fees so little kids can play their games. It's almost an insult to anyone who donates money to the Wikimedia Foundation. Donors pay to keep Wikipedia alive, they don't pay for contests like this that don't help further the encyclopedia. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's a couple of quotes from an ancient VfD on WP:FUN that more or less summarise why this page should be kept:
        • [1] Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia.
        • [2] I liken wikigames to the building of the great pyramids. Whole temporary towns were built to house, feed, rest, and entertain the workers.
        • Both far more eloquent than I could have achieved, and highly relevant to this issue. Basically, the "fun" stuff is part of the support infrastructure for the encyclopedia. Yes, the encyclopedia is the most important thing, but it can't exist without the community - so community-building is valuable. WaltonOne 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd feel like going and working my arse off to build the encyclopedia if I was told "terrible userpage, shows no info at all, looks bad". That fun and positive reenforcement just gets me going. </sarcasm> --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
            • If I'm reading the page correctly, that comment was for User:Example. Not one of our most prolific or easily-offended contributors. :-) WaltonOne 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marlith 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social commentary

  • Comment. I think this raises a larger question of personal freedom (used here not with political connotations but under the more generic definition of "the power to act or speak without externally imposed restraints"). Should users be allowed to do what they want in their own userspace, or should it be subject to the community's judgment of whether that activity is productive or useful? Current policy is the latter, and as a result we end up with debates like this one, to decide exactly what crosses the line of acceptability. Is there any hard evidence that the presence of the shops diminishes the total number of useful mainspace edits? If such evidence does not exist, should we ban the shops anyway, based on the possibility that they might? Does curtailing users' freedom have a negative impact on our encyclopedia's ability to achieve its goals? And in making decisions based on rationale involving these underlying questions, who should shoulder the burden of proof – the shopkeepers or those who want to delete the shops? I think the problem with leaving it to the community is that, as in politics, it ends up being based at least partly on arbitrary whims, conjecture, etc. when it would have been easier, simpler and fairer to just eliminate the regulation and free the market. If one doesn't like a shopkeeper's wares, one is free to not buy it and even to advocate against that product; but to take it upon oneself to shut them down is anticompetitive in the marketplace of ideas; leads to less freedom of choice, not more; and as we saw in communist Russia, causes stagnation. If the shop is not fulfilling a perceived need/demand then in time it will have a tendency to die on its own. Taking another economic example, should we have banned Beanie Babies on the grounds that they consumed finite resources while serving little useful function other than being a fad that diverted people's attention and money from useful purposes? Yet we have seen the US economy thrive precisely because of the relative lack of controls we place on consumers, opting instead to let the marketplace decide over time what is truly important and worthy of our productive resources. And in the end, the decisions the free market makes – because each person can choose for themselves based on their own unique wishes, desires, needs and preferences – are better than what could have been imposed by any central authority or community consensus. So I ask the Wikipedia community, what policy will you support? The current one, which is based on principles analogous to those that led to the Soviet Union's economic stagnation and collapse? Or a new policy which will be based on principles of liberty, tolerance and free enterprise, in which all have a chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness without interference from others (even if that happiness is the result of a gaudy new signature), following the same economic model that has made the United States the world's principal superpower and beacon for the rest of the world to seek after in their rush to emulate our success – a level of success that, despite the existence of some of the same intellectual brilliance, raw materials and other factors of production in countries like communist China, they have not been able to attain because they lack our freedom? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What the fuck? Wikipedia is not, nor analogous to, a country - and frankly I think that's so painfully obvious it's not worthy of an entry in WP:NOT or any deep explanation. Wikipedia is neither America nor Soviet Russia (or analogous to either) and I think many of us will be thankful for that, although you may not see why especially considering your skewed view of the prior. And, food for thought, I'm sure most companies in America ban toys within company grounds, therefore the entire success of capitalism relies on restrictions on "personal freedoms" similar to Wikipedia's. -Halo (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire. What about the work hard play hard philosophy that pervades so many American companies, especially those with young demographics and that are seeking to keep the atmosphere light and the creative juices flowing by hosting some playful diversions? Consider Brulant, which according to the Environment tab encourages "an impromptu Nerf gun war in the hallway, a company-wide Whirlyball tournament, great liberties taken with Photoshop, or game of chess, a mocha and fresh baked cookies in the kitchen." Or Corporate Executive Board, USA, which has on-site happy hours for its marketing staff in order to encourage bonding and as a payoff for the long workdays in the closing weeks of the year? Or how DC law firms have been putting in bocce courts on their roof (See A Playful Change of Venue)? That work hard, play hard mentality is part of what makes America so great, and which will undoubtedly enable us to continue our success into the 21st century. If only Wikipedia would follow the corporate world's lead! Vintei, please make me a signature that incorporates red, white and blue flashing stars. This country rocks! USA! USA! USA! Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)