Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 20 April 2007

RfA and WikiProject

Please see this () edit I just made. I think it's only courteous a) to tell you that I've mentioned your name and b) to invite you to help us make the idea work in practice. --Dweller 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Flaws.

Kelly Martin, don't you realize that getting users to join WikiProjects in order to get your support has two major flaws? One: it'll scare potential admins off, as some users don't want to join WikiProjects, and prefer to do work on various articles. Two: it'll make users join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons; instead of joining a WikiProject because they're interested in the WikiProject's subject, they'll join it simply as a way to become an admin. What would you rather have? Users joining WikiProjects because they care about the WikiProject, or users joining WikiProjects only as a way to become an administrator? Acalamari 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What about wikigonmes, who may participate in a category of articles but dont want to wear a "badge" announcing themselves. It seems to me to be against what much of wikipedia is about. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid not all WikiProjects are alike. WP:P*, which is really the only one I'm active in, is fairly dysfunctional in terms of getting people to edit specific articles, or in a specific style. Probably fewer than half a dozen people actually participate; though it isn't dead, and has never been much more active than this. Per the 80%/20% rule, I strongly suspect most wikiprojects are closer to this than to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history or something similarly well organized. Here are a few I picked at random from Category:WikiProjects participating in Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Blackadder hasn't been edited in a month; Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Viruses- worse... How "active" would you require a wikiproject to be before you would accept a nomination from it? --AnonEMouse 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people would not want to be associated with wikiprojects? Misplaced Pages itself a just a huge project, if people are so against wikiprojects why would they be part of wikipedia? Wikiprojects are not about ordering people around and micromanaging. Its about collaboration and an exchange of ideas. If people view projects as anything else they are part of the wrong project and there needs to be a reform for project reform. One way to do that is get more people involved. One way to get more people involved is give wikiprojects a higher profile. i wonder how we could do that? David D. (Talk) 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that content creation has little to do with adminship, and this proposal is trying to link them (thus the exclusion of non-content wikiprojects). There is no reason why a good admin should also be required to be good at content creation, and someone involved mostly in content creation doesn't need to (and in most cases shouldn't) be an admin. To make matters worse, many WikiProjects have specific points of view, and requiring endorsements could worsen the battles between some projects, and create new factions pushing particular viewpoints. In fact, I would say that in a variety of cases, I would consider WikiProject involvement to be a negative point for admins. Would you expect that an admin candidate endorsed by WikiProject_Paranormal, WikiProject_Psionics, or even WikiProject_Pseudoscience for example, would be unbiased, and that the endorsements were not being given in order to gain admins to assist in edit warring? --Philosophus 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would be the probem of someone in the paranormal project? Why do you assume they are all biased? Clearly each admin candidate is judged based on their individual contributions. Why would you label someone based on their affiliations?

Also there are many good reason why an admin candidate should have experience in the main space other than vandal fighting and adding stub templates. Primarily since experience at that level allows one to since the whole picture. If the admin chooses to drift away from editing mainspace and focus on other tasks, fair enough, but it is reasonable to expect main space edits and contributions as a minimum requirement. In all my comments at RfA this has been my highest priority. In my experience that is the way you gain the background knowledge to do the job well. It also shifts the focus from the numbr of edits to the quality of edits. Obviously this is only one aspect of the qualifications to be a good admin but it's where I start.

What about the big picture here. Wikiprojects gain from such a focus. This is good for wikipedia. Others users are still free support admin candidates without a nomination from a wikiproject? Who loses here? Why is this idea so intimidating to so many? David D. (Talk) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

The threadfuls and threadfuls of outrage on your talk page are making me, for one, just more convinced that this whole thing is a good idea. The instantaneous and piled on dissent just shows that many people are wikistalking you, and the repeatedly recreated threads (as opposed to posting int eh same thread as others have created) just show that people aren't paying attention to actual discussion and are just trying to "get their say in". Lol! I hope you march on with this idea. Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people. Milto LOL pia 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe the focus on the encyclopedia is what is scaring people"? I don't think so. More like the attempts to reverse WP:CREEP. -- Earle Martin 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea if anything good will come off it but I think it's a reasonable idea being conducted in a reasonable manner. Haukur 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Response.

I don't know if you are watchlisting my talk page at the moment, but to let you know, I have responded on my talk page here to keep our discussion centered. Acalamari 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

I have refactored my userpage and removed all the userboxes that you objected to. I've also fixed the grammatical error (which, as I explained, was the result of a standard template). I'm sorry that my userpage was inappropriate, and I don't expect you to change your vote in my RfA; I just want to ensure that my userpage complies with your requirements, for future reference. I wasn't aware that some users found those kind of userboxes inappropriate, and I will not add them in future. It isn't the RfA that's important to me here, I just don't want to offend anyone generally. Walton 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't want to answer my question, but I'd appreciate some kind of response, just to let me know that you've read my posting. Walton 09:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful falsehoods?

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with those edits? — Omegatron 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"As of May 2005, a major requirement of this policy is that use of non-free content on Misplaced Pages be considered fair use under US law." This statement says something different than you probably think it does. What this statement says is that "As of May 2005, Misplaced Pages chooses to interpret United States law such that any content complying with this policy will be considered, by Misplaced Pages, to be consistent with that law." Clearly this is false. Misplaced Pages is not empowered to make binding interpretations of United States law. What I think you meant to say, but failed to actually say, is "As of May 2005, in order to comply with this policy, any particular use of nonfree content must be used consistent with US fair use law", or something to that effect. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's it? That requires a revert of all of my edits? Of course I meant the latter. You could have just reworded it. — Omegatron 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There were other problems as well. That was just the most serious objection. In any case, Greg has already reinserted the salvageable portions of your edits, so I think there's no need for further acrimony over this issue. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Salvageable"? — Omegatron 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I despise "thank you for voting" notes. If I had known you were going to bother me with this swill, I would have opposed your candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)