Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If we want to have geographical information about contributors, which I think is desirable, then the current scheme is not very helpful: it doesn't quickly allow me to determine where Mr. X is located. I would have to check all the geographical subpages. I suggest we abandon the subpages and organize everything in a big table as follows:

Germany
Mr X -- Mr Y
U.S.A. - Minnesota
AxelBoldt -- Ms Z
U.S.A. - Nevada
Whoever -- Ms ZZZ
U.S.A. - unspecified
Larry Sanger

etc., all geographical listings being alphabetical. This also avoids the need for people double listing themselves. --AxelBoldt

Why do you feel geographical location is desirable? What does it add?

It adds information and information is good. For instance you could organize a meeting of local Wikipedians, or you could check whether somebody with a typically left-leaning European slant is actually from Europe. --AxelBoldt
nice bias, Axel. But yes, location is extremely important, since whatever people read in the wikipedia, they are applying in an ecoregion and culture that has constraints and balances of its own. Personally I would like to know a bare minimum about people who announce themselves, and might even provide that information if there was a universal standard. I also think that bioregional democracy (even forks per ecoregion) would be good for it in the long run. But we can talk about that in meta.

I actually tend to agree, let's list by country of residence, rather than nationality. But, you know, in this day of mobility, I think nationality is at least as important as location. Let's instruct people to list themselves both under their nationality and under their country of residence.

you know, latitude/longitude or ecoregion is more neutral as a way to say where you are.

Sound OK? I think the subpages are going to be necessary because eventually the list is probably going to be too long for one page (the complete listing will have to be separate subpages such as Wikipedians/A). Besides, they can conveniently talk to each other on those pages (as the Aussies have been doing). --LMS

Shouldn't this topic be Wikipedian rather than Wikipedians? --AV

No, lists are usually in the plural. Roman emperors lists all the Roman emperors, Roman emperor would have particular details about the office. Make sense?

Doesn't make enough sense. I think lists should be under "XYZ listing" or "listing of XYZs" or something like that; "XYZ" and "XYZs" are just too easy to confuse. (Someone who is here to use Wikipedia wouldn't know where to find info on XYZs in general--"XYZ" or "XYZs." --LMS

Moreover, it's a nuisance to link. I asked the question after seeing some reference Wikipedian in a sentence (before a proper name), and being surprised that the topic doesn't exist.

Maybe it should be: singular - definition plus lists if these aren't very long; if they are long, they go to /List. In case of Wikipedians, I think it makes sense to rename it to Wikipedian. --AV

Well, that's simple enough. We just need a redirect at Wikipedian. In fact, I'll do it now... --Stephen Gilbert

Having spent 5 minutes looking for a Wikipedian place to post the following, I apologize if this is not the right place -- but as a 100% newcomer, I can't figure out where else to post it: I just tried to do a Google.com search for the exact string "List of UN Secretaries-General" -- and Google came up empty-handed. The when I tried the other spelling of the plural "List of UN Secretary-Generals" -- Google came up with the following Wikipedia URL: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.fcgi?action=browse&id=United_Nations&oldid=UN . But this page has a link which reads PRECISELY as the ORIGINAL search string: "List of UN Secretaries-General". So why did Google.com not find this page? (Note: It was not on the list of recently- changed things.)

It is on the list of recent changes. It was changed on 21 Sep 2001. Also, you can look at the cached copy on Google to see how old it is - it was last edited on 12 Sep 2001. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 13

Can anyone tell me how we arrived at 400 for the number of Wikipedians? As Jzcool has pointed out, there's less than 200 listed on this page. --Stephen Gilbert

The wikipedian counter-person counts up all the people who sign their changes. Malcolm Farmer says on his page: "I have a list of those signing their contributions, and any page with one of those names gets excluded from the count as a Wikipedian." -- Dreamyshade

Many of these Wikipedians no longer contribute, and their pages are still in the main namespace. Is it worth it to redirect all of their pages to the User namespace? Can this be done automatically or should I just begin to redirect them? -- Dreamyshade

I removed,

Just as arguably, there is no legitimate community without shared risk, especially shared bodily harm.

because it's my understanding that only terms and concepts in general use are included here - one person's opinion is not considered to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I am open to reverting this if and only if some sources can be provided where this link between community and "bodily harm" is stated - enough to show that it's an opinion held by a group rather than just an individual. -- April

your party is welcome to its opinion. The "arguably this is a community" statement is not attributed, and I refuse to therefore provide attribution for mine. Your ideological requirement that your party's preference be the standard is noted, as a bias of yours, and to find groups that believe that taking risks together and potentially suffering harm together is important as a way to build solidarity, I suggest you consult any member of indigenous peoples or the anti-globalization movement.
also, I note that your party was not elected to run the wikipedia, therefore, "arguably" ought to have exactly the same standard for both. At least there were articles *explaining* risk and bodily harm so that the user could judge for themselves - a courtesy missing in the file as it is.
I also agree, on principle, that only views shared by at least two people ought to be reflected in any wiki file, that unilateral editing based on some inner urge is a bad idea, and ask you who it was in your party that agreed with you that that line ought to be removed, or ought to require attribution?
  • I actually don't agree with the two-persons-per-change idea, which seems to me to be a very fast way to reduce the participation here enormously.
it can be managed by disciplined people with a few good simple tools - for instance publishing can be "pending" for say 24 hours until a second person approves and says why - on a special one-line comment field near the top. Removal, the same... a clear link at the top could ask if you want to see the most recent N versions unravelled. Easiest if we can track factions/parties making changes, e.g. I consider April, Axel Boldt, and LDC to be engaged in the same party agenda, and would like to know when they damage something so I can fix it.

But I can provide sources, and you should in fact remember from earlier discussions on the topic: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=community shows that several dictionaries give meanings that would include Wikipedia, and dictionaries in turn gather their meanings from common usage.

no, that is in dispute between your party (claiming "common usage") and mine (claiming "ecological and cultural affinity" moderated by common usage) - were I to adopt your standard I would give up all ecology and culture in favor of what is popular, and I simply can't and won't do that. Also, the use of "arguably" suggests that whoever wrote the original comment knew that there was another view. Which I simply provided with links for those who were wondering what community was, for themselves.
also, your sources back me too - you can find many dictionaries that prove the word community is overused, yes, but as *you* should in fact remember we acknowledged that "a group of people sharing bodily risk" was much closer to the original meaning of the word. I submit that I have just as much of a right to ask for specific respect for the ancient meaning in a new community like this one that is getting it's legs, and that "common usage" among overly complex societies confusing and killing themselves ought to have less weight.

Also consider anyone who refers to "the scientific community" or whatnot; they also constitute a large group in agreement with this usage. -- April

I am not interested in the opinion of "the scientific community" more than that of the "three billionth user" or even "one billionth user". But that, too, is a question of party and morality, and you must decide for yourself whether to withdraw your condition, or find a fair way to assess both the "community" and "not a community" claims.
I suggest such a fair way would be to outline some worst cases of what might happen if community were always used my way, or opened up your way, and see what you really think about this, and what it does to planet and people. Then add your own line about the counter-case, or remove "arguably" from the line before "community" and await my response.
    • I, on the other hand, will simply put my case to the Wikipedia community and accept the resulting consensus. -- April
the question is how you do that, whether one person undoing it constitutes a broken consensus, i.e. is "consensus" the same as "unanimity"?

If its not obvious: words in Wikipedia are used in their standard senses. AxelBoldt

at present, that would be Axel-speak for *your* standard senses. But as I say, no one elected you, and your conception of "standard" (as in the usurpation of "Standard Model" to mean particle physics not automobiles which is the "standard sense" in which the population uses it), will soon be overturned by whatever consensus process arises from this. You see, it is *my* concept of "standard" that arises from such a consensus process, rather than from a particle accelerator as does yours.

Guys, I've come to the comclusion that this "24" guy is something like Cunc used to be--he's just stirring up shit here to hear himself talk, and engaging in dialog with him just encourages him. If we just delete his nonsense when it's posted (with a brief explanation of why--usually something like "removed uncredited personal opinion" or "this is not an encyclopedia article"), and just ignore his diatribes, he will eventually notice that no one is coming to his defense, and maybe get a clue. --LDC

now party lines are absolutely rigid - and the claim is made here, as is typical for LDC that "no one" (as opposed to the more important "no body") can withstand this "Gang Of Three": April, Axel Boldt, and LDC himself. I agree that you should use a small set of standard excuses for ignoring the political opposition - and that you should agree on this dismissive excuses amongst yourselves. Eventually, one of you may read Heidegger and understand what's actually going on, but if not, you will simply lose quicker.

Wikipedians: if you have a problem with the coup by the LDC/Axel/April party, by all means, speak up now, it gets marginally more difficult as time goes on, and stopping it early might save a few kids, a few apes, and a few types of undiscovered bugs and plants even.

Let them go on as they are, and, well, there are significant "worst cases" that arise.

What a thrilling vision of Wikipedians mounting the parapets, flashing sabres of truth and wisdom in the face of one who, like Mrs. Slocum, is unanimous in his opinions. Eclecticology
    • Heh! I adore that image, Eclecticology, not to mention the Slocumry. :) I think, though, that LDC's right - on reflection, and further reading, I have the distinct feeling of my chain being yanked. So my image is more like that of the French Knights to the English in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ;) -- April

Might it be an idea to move the above wranglings to Meta? They seem obsolete to me. I presume "24" is the unsigning party; it's hard to tell when reading pages after the event. At the risk of feeding him, there is shared risk in Wikipedia: the risk that our text is hacked by wikivandals and that our statements are dissected by trolls such as himself. Tarquin