Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a social networking site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Discussion
- Completely agree with ideas expressed, however shouldn't this be incorperated into WP:NOT and WP:USER? Addhoc 11:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands, it's already been put into practice by many users, including myself, User:Calton and User:YechielMan, among others. Existing policy (i.e. WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:UP) gives us adequate power to nuke myspace userpages (almost on an industrial scale). MER-C 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from WP:AN
- WP:NOT is already an official policy. I don't think we need another policy to state the same. But yes, we need to enforce it more strictly. Maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site should be an essay for explaining this aspect in detail. --soum (0_o) 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am in disagreement with Ryulong. Although WP:NOT#MYSPACE is official policy on Wikipedia, it is been hardly followed and users are reminded not to bite newcomers or scare them away by overwhelming them with policies and guidelines. Established users can, of course, be asked to remove such pages from their userspace. Tightening the noose, in this manner, would definitely be bad for the encyclopedia --Zamkudi 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Many users only create their userpage, and don't do contribute to the encyclopedia in any field (look at the number of pages prodded for this reason, and that's only a tiny part of the iceberg). While I think that WP:NOT#MYSPACE just needs to be stressed more (and maybe clarified a bit to define for example the minimum length of the grace period before such pages can be deleted), I think something must be done to explain newcomers that Wikipedia is not a cool myspace substitute. -- lucasbfr talk 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- A sense of the scope of the problem may be found by checking out this page, especially since this archived list only holds those user pages tagged and deleted since March, most of which are just the ones I tagged myself. --Calton | Talk 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Userfying spam articles is just pointless. It's still spam and we still don't want it. Secretlondon 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Although many of these are articles about themselves, it's not myspace as much as spam hosting. Secretlondon 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Userfying spam articles is just pointless. It's still spam and we still don't want it. Secretlondon 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- A sense of the scope of the problem may be found by checking out this page, especially since this archived list only holds those user pages tagged and deleted since March, most of which are just the ones I tagged myself. --Calton | Talk 14:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Many users only create their userpage, and don't do contribute to the encyclopedia in any field (look at the number of pages prodded for this reason, and that's only a tiny part of the iceberg). While I think that WP:NOT#MYSPACE just needs to be stressed more (and maybe clarified a bit to define for example the minimum length of the grace period before such pages can be deleted), I think something must be done to explain newcomers that Wikipedia is not a cool myspace substitute. -- lucasbfr talk 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Soumyasch - this is already covered by policy. If editors are ignorant of, ignoring, or never made aware of one policy, creating another policy is unlikely to help. --ElKevbo 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT as policy covers quite a lot of things we have other policies and guidelines for. This maybe useful if it gives a broader view of what is/isn't acceptable without going too far down the road of instruction creep. --pgk 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, creating this policy at all in instruction creep. :) --ElKevbo 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats why I said, having an essay to explain this would be better than creating another redundant policy. Most users do so because they are not aware of the WP:NOT policy. What we need is better way to educate the users. Maybe stating that (visibly) in the new user page creation form will have a better reach. --soum (0_o) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would be okay with an essay provided it's not used as a replacement for policy or to intimidate editors unaware of the differences between essays, guidelines, and policies (and that would be an issue with an editor, not with the proposed essay). --ElKevbo 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with essaying it. It's a definite clarification from WP:NOT myspace and userpage policy. This is already covered under those two policies, but having a centralised page for "Wikipedia is not social networking" will aid in discussion, as this seems to be an increasing problem. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thats why I said, having an essay to explain this would be better than creating another redundant policy. Most users do so because they are not aware of the WP:NOT policy. What we need is better way to educate the users. Maybe stating that (visibly) in the new user page creation form will have a better reach. --soum (0_o) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, creating this policy at all in instruction creep. :) --ElKevbo 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT as policy covers quite a lot of things we have other policies and guidelines for. This maybe useful if it gives a broader view of what is/isn't acceptable without going too far down the road of instruction creep. --pgk 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am in disagreement with Ryulong. Although WP:NOT#MYSPACE is official policy on Wikipedia, it is been hardly followed and users are reminded not to bite newcomers or scare them away by overwhelming them with policies and guidelines. Established users can, of course, be asked to remove such pages from their userspace. Tightening the noose, in this manner, would definitely be bad for the encyclopedia --Zamkudi 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Illegal activities
We should not include the phrase "promoting illegal activities", because things are different in each country. Also, even in a worldwide bases, "illegal activities" can include nudism, homosexuality, marijuana, etc. IMO that phrase should be stricken out from this proposed policy. WooyiTalk to me? 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then how about illegal in the United States? I included this phrase because I could not think of another blanket term for promoting the act of pedophilia, which has in the past been discussed at WP:ANI and led to arbitration cases, desysoppings, and blocks. If there is better wording, then it can be changed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added a note (illegal in the United States) after the statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well then marijuana is illegal in U.S., so userpages can't say the user does it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- We cannot cover all situations in all locations, so that is why we have this simple statement. We are mostly looking for people who target others for violence or for pedophilia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- In an email communication with arbitrator Fred Bauder, he said promotion of "odious" activities should be banned, should that be the criteria? WooyiTalk to me? 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "odious"? Is that going to be implemented like the I know it when I see it thing from Potter Stewart? —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- In an email communication with arbitrator Fred Bauder, he said promotion of "odious" activities should be banned, should that be the criteria? WooyiTalk to me? 21:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- We cannot cover all situations in all locations, so that is why we have this simple statement. We are mostly looking for people who target others for violence or for pedophilia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well then marijuana is illegal in U.S., so userpages can't say the user does it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added a note (illegal in the United States) after the statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- We should be very careful with such wordings, because some people are apt to go into moral panic whenever they see a userpage or username referring to, say, soft drugs. >Radiant< 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Illegal activities, who gives a damn? Just let people say what they want, it doesn't hurt anything.
