Revision as of 14:36, 16 March 2008 editBorock (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,188 edits →Today's featured article← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:37, 16 March 2008 edit undoRobJ1981 (talk | contribs)32,546 edits →General discussion happening weekly on Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America): new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
Just wondering. If this isn't posted in the right place, please move it. :-) ] (]) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | Just wondering. If this isn't posted in the right place, please move it. :-) ] (]) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Or they might be please to get all the attention. :-) ] (]) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | :Or they might be please to get all the attention. :-) ] (]) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
== General discussion happening weekly on ] == | |||
Several editors continue to add a section each week announcing which games are coming out on Monday. The sources they use aren't reliable sources for the article. They know this, but contiune the sections anyway. I've told them to take it to their talk pages several times, but they refuse. I personally feel an admin needs to stop this. Due to their announcing of games coming out, several IP editors usually add the games to the article (which then gets reverted). If the announcing wouldn't happen, then this problem wouldn't be happening. In my view, this clearly violates the talk header... as it's just general discussion of the subject, and not a way to improve it. ] (]) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:37, 16 March 2008
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
Has wikipedia driven out too many productive editors?
Today, after reading an interesting article about Internet Historiography, I decided to break my wikiabsence to check on the status of History of the Internet. I was moderately disturbed to discover that the article was, despite still being labeled as a 'Good Article', had suffered sever degradation because of improperly corrected vandalism. What's particularly worrying is that the article, which is pretty prominent, had been in this state since at least October. It's not that the article hasn't been edited by people trying to correct and maintain it, as the article history shows it's been regularly edited consistently. It's just seems that the amount of vandalism overwhelmed the editors who were maintaining the article. I've corrected it for now, but it's likely to end up in a state again, and I've not been made to feel welcome enough here to want to spend my time keeping it maintained.
This seems to me to be a clear warning that the 'identify and correct' response to vandalism is breaking down as Misplaced Pages has lost more and more capable editors to the attrition of the hostile environment Misplaced Pages has turned into. There are no longer enough people wiling to give time to the project to be able to cope with the growth, constant maintenance and upkeep needs; and this is a direct result of the failings of the community and foundation. I've been a warning voice saying that the project's been blundering towards this kind of failure for quite some time, and I'm not at all happy that it looks like I'm going to be proven right so quickly. I do hope there is time to correct the state of Misplaced Pages, and be able to bring back productive editors who've been driven out by the increasingly top-heavy bureaucracy, secrecy and combativenesses. --Barberio (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP is an odd environment. There's a whole bunch of meta stuff going on, which people seem to think is Terribly Serious. Meanwhile, there are people quietly gnoming away on typos,
corectingcorrecting spelling in articles which, really, just aren't very good. You can find articles which have perfect grammar, no spelling mistakes or typos, are formatted nicely, have references correctly linked, but which are still a bit rubbish. Important subjects often attract trolls and vandals, and sometimes don't seem to attract enough editors to keep the article in good shape. And while people are battling about that stuff other people are adding articles for every bus route in england, or every character in some computer game. Or gently edit-warring over whether a fictional duck (I'm not kidding) is notable enough to go on the list of fictional ducks or not. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You captured it pretty nicely. Some of the edit warring, talk page raging, vandalism and meta stuff can make wikipedia seem pretty goofy at times. My experience has been that there is only a small percentage of the editors who are performing significant amounts of work on key articles. (Those listed under Misplaced Pages:Vital articles, for example.) But there are many editors also make useful contributions: small corrections and refinements that improve the article quality.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a classic corollary of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" idiom-the noisy "edit wars", "vandalism" and "meta debates" receive all the attention while the quiet wiki-gnometry, article creation and maintenance fly under the radar. After six years of growing success, I think it is pretty clear that the sky is not falling on Misplaced Pages. Barerio's identification and correction the History of the Internet is part of that success, despite the pessimistic outlook of his post. While Misplaced Pages will never be an epitome of perfection, the dynamic nature of that site is what will bring readers in. It is the people that are motivated to respond to what they read (such as a typo or a correction) will continue to make the site better than it was before they clicked the edit button. Agne/ 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You captured it pretty nicely. Some of the edit warring, talk page raging, vandalism and meta stuff can make wikipedia seem pretty goofy at times. My experience has been that there is only a small percentage of the editors who are performing significant amounts of work on key articles. (Those listed under Misplaced Pages:Vital articles, for example.) But there are many editors also make useful contributions: small corrections and refinements that improve the article quality.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see this a lot...someone makes a post saying, roughly, "We used to have a working community of editors on this article, but for X reason, most of them are gone and the people who are left aren't up to the job, and the article is worse than it used to be." The response always seems to be either "Misplaced Pages is a success" or "Misplaced Pages is a failure", when the question was as much about people and process as about pages. Barberio, have you talked with any of the guys that you don't see around any more? If the problem is that they didn't feel up to the task of maintenance, would they be more interested in, say, an article for Version 1.0? Was there some other reason they moved on? I don't know the best place for this discussion, maybe on that article's talk page, or maybe here. P.S. You'll find a lot of support for your position on the talk pages over at Version 1.0, and you're in luck, the bots start rolling next month for Version 0.7, so this would be a very good time to invite people to come back to contribute in time to make the cut. P.P.S. This is not a criticism of the above replies, which I thought were insightful and helpful...just not complete. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The meta stuff, while it consumes a lot of time, is also an effort to take care of systemic problems and improve processes in ways that will produce benefits in the long run. We need both the metapedians and the exopedians because each is doing something that helps make the other's work worthwhile. As for people covering obscure subjects more than the mainstream ones, that's to be expected. After all, you can do a google search and easily find a plethora of comprehensive information on, say, Edgar Allen Poe. In that sense, having a good Misplaced Pages article on it might be considered less crucial, from the public's point of view. The obscure subjects, such as blood electrification, might be harder to find, and thus someone goes to the trouble of creating a wiki article on it. Of course, those cases often are on the boundaries of what the community considers notable, and those debates attract more attention to the meta aspects of Misplaced Pages. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we ought to give three cheers and a tiger for Barberio, to make him feel welcome again! Roaringly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As an occasional user and (very) occasional editor of wikipedia over the years, it seems to me that many articles are over-long and are really suffering as a result. If anyone has attempted to write a report - or even a letter - by committee, they won't be surprised: everyone has their own styles and viewpoints. This Newbury,_Berkshireis a good example of what was once a reasonable article - and one to which I contributed a few years ago - which is sort of OK, but is now showing signs of degradation as people add nonsensical points (e.g. the paragraph beginning 'Until the completion of the bypass'). I certainly wouldn't claim to be one of the 'productive editors' that Barberio is suggesting have been driven out, but while I once might have been tempted the Newbury article my feeling is that if I attempted to edit every nonsensical sentence or example of poor drfating I come across on wikipedia, I'd spend my time doing nothing else. --Andrew Cooper (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Improper tags and copyright violations
This image - Image:M a haque.jpg - discussed on the Talk:Muhammad Abdul Haque is an image that clearly stand in violation of Misplaced Pages copyright policies. Apparently User:NAHID, who tries so desperately to get any and every non-free image I upload (example: here) has decided to ignore the violation. Since I don't have as much proficiency in tagging, I am bringing it here. Also noticeable are the following images that appear on the Sylhet article, each carrying improper copyright tags and clear copyright infringement:
Take a look, someone. I don't know where to go from here. Aditya 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, what's the reigning policy? For now it looks like - "you can have as many non-free images beyond the narrow usage definition as long you tag it as public domain or something and as long no one cares." Good policy, that. Aditya 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you see a violation of policy, fix it. If an editor reverts the change, point out the error. If the problem continues, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. If you can't get other editors to support you, you're probably wrong. And remember that you can always get personalized advice at WP:EA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fix it? How? So far the only direction I have is extremely general - ask the uploader to do something about it. If that doesn't work, haul the case to Editor Assistance. For an unfinished non-free use rational we have a hundred processes. Surely there are more specific processes for a wrong (or even falsified) copyright tag. And, I am really sorry if I was wrong to assume that non-free images carrying wrong copyright tags are unacceptable. If other editors (including a troll who can hide his tracks nicely) think they are acceptable, I guess, I should shut up and forget. Aditya 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you see a violation of policy, fix it. If an editor reverts the change, point out the error. If the problem continues, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. If you can't get other editors to support you, you're probably wrong. And remember that you can always get personalized advice at WP:EA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect vandalism repair
Not infrequently I come across cases where chunks of articles have been lost due to incorrect vandalism repair. Typically what happens is that someone replaces a whole paragraph or section with some juvenile nonsense, and the next person deletes that nonsense but fails to restore the earlier text. I fairly regularly come across instances that occurred months ago and have never been spotted. I usually only notice because it's an article I once worked on, and I remember what was in it. It seems there is a good chance that in some articles, especially the less frequently visited ones, such errors will never be spotted and will persist indefinitely. I wonder if there is any way to reduce the chance of this happening? 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~
- Whenever I see a case where someone's messed up reverting vandalism I leave a note on their talk page; hopefully if enough people can be educated, this will cease to be a problem. —Random832 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Bugzilla home page should be updated
I wasn't really sure where to put this, but here goes. Just a small thing: the Bugzilla home page contains Image:Bug.png, which has been superceded by Image:Computer bug.svg - could the page be updated to use the new image? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Post a bug at bugzilla itself. MER-C 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages logo
OK, somewhere on someone's userpage, I saw a Misplaced Pages's logo, only it was bouncing up and down. I tried searching for it, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is? DiligentTerrier 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen that also, and I find it very ugly and a terrible nuisance; I just wish I could turn it off when I come across it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So much duplication in the wikipedia.
Man, so many articles have duplicate info. Like where a regular encolopedia would just say "", wikipedia will actually have one or two paragraphs specifically on blah. Look at Nuclear reactor/Nuclear Power/Nuclear fission articles for instsance holly shit am I stoned!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.179.83 (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some of this is due to making each article be complete, so an article on nuclear reactor is likely to summarize what is needed for a sustained nuclear fission reaction before explaining which parts of a reactor are needed in order to provide each of those requirements. The flow of the article might make such duplication less obvious in a perfect article, but an article which has been edited piecemeal is more likely to acquire rough points which need polishing. Read over the whole article and see what needs to be copyedited. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- See also Misplaced Pages:Editing Under the Influence. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Definite Article?
I have recently taken notice of a singular phenomenon occuring here on Misplaced Pages. For it appears that a number of articles have utterly neglected to insert a definite article in its appropriate place. Is this some sort of new 'Misplaced Pages dialect'? Or is this merely an error caused by dint of a meagre translator? One example, ' Rurik remained in power until his death in 879. His successors (the Rurik Dynasty), however, moved the capital to Kiev and founded the state of Kievan Rus, which persisted until 1240, the time of Mongol invasion.' I believe that I have seen this error some seven or eight times over the course of the past week and wish to discover the reason behind it. Thank you for any response. -- 4.159.77.219 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is probably just a simple mistake. It's a common tendency to read over mistakes after having read the article a number of times. Nothing to worry about, this happens everywhere, from government reports to newspapers to online encyclopedias. If you come across such an error, feel free to fix it. Aecis 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Polish, Russian and other Slavic languages have different grammatical rules for the definite article when compared to English. Hence English articles edited by speakers of these languages may be missing the definite article where English speakers would always use it. That's the normal reason why it's missing. No big deal. It's always easily fixed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Zedla
Resolved – Discussion closed by Bureaucrat Warofdreams as successful. AGK (contact) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a notice that this RfA is currently running in the Bureaucrats' discretionary zone and closes in a few hours. It would be good if more of the community would participate, to help make consensus clear, as currently fewer than 50 editors have participated. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
An early mystery
Just for fun, i thought i would try and find an earlier edit than UuU. I have come accross a new mystery though. Who or what was User:dhcp-22-95.lclark.edu? At first glance, it appears as if it is made up and not registered. I however did not just pluck this from thin air. Why it is not registered is a mystery. It does however exist as a user, according to here. Simply south (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Quite a few of the 2001 edits are messed up. This happened during the changeover from the original WP wiki software to the mark II and mark III versions. For another example take a look at the Doctor Who article. The history shows me as the earliest author (which I'm not) but if you go back through diffs you'll see that my Nov 2001 edit links back to an earlier edit from Sept 2002! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've also noticed this (a while back and this was explained then) with the history of the Main Page. Simply south (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Zero-sum BLP
I've written this (rather short) essay about BLP; basically we need to be fair to all living persons, not just the ones we have articles about or the ones who put in complaints to OTRS. —Random832 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling error in Hans Scholl Article on Misplaced Pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/Hans_Scholl
"He showed no fear of dieing for a great cause." That should be 'dying.' It's the last sentence in the paragraph before the one sentence long paragraph (or more simply put, the second sentence from the bottom).
Can someone correct this, please?
- Anyone can edit... why not fix it yourself? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Discordianism (Kerry Wendell Thornley) Hoax / joke
have noticed numerous articles which are in fact jokes and/or hoaxes and vandalism related to Discordianism. discordianism is a fictional creation of Robert Anton Wilson. Allot of Robert Anton Wilson's work is based on blurring fact and fiction, but it seems that this has infiltrated Misplaced Pages and there are many articles which are presenting fictional characters or Wilson's as though they were real. Its a funny joke but I think it's a serious threat to the credibility of Misplaced Pages, and underscores the Achilles heel of the collaborative nature of wikipedia. If allot of people think its amusing, its fairly easy to use Misplaced Pages to distort the truth. Rich.lewis (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had believed that Discordianism was created by Gregory Hill (writer) and Kerry Wendell Thornley, who were friends of Anton Wilson's. Is there reason to believe that he invented them? Algebraist 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Other than those two bios (if that), could you give several examples of articles that you think are hoaxes? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we can ignore this - based on this comment on Popefauvexxiii's user page, Rich.lewis seems to be making a rather deadpan joke. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Seen any flowers lately?
As springtime comes to the Northern Hemisphere, a lot of Wikipedians will notice flowers blooming in the gardens, lawns, and wild places in their regions. If you're wondering what these plants are (and whether there's a good article about them yet), you might be able to find them on the Wikiversity Bloom Clock using either local or global keys.
Whether or not you know plants, Wikiversity does need your help in telling us what flowers are blooming where, and when. To begin logging plants in bloom, all you need to do is tell us where in the world you are, and then it's as simple as typing *~~~~ on a log page. The more regions we get data from the better, and the more people logging from any particular region the better as well.
The Bloom Clock is Wikiversity's first, oldest, and most well-developed research effort, and has collected data for hundreds of flowering plants, including some of the most common garden plants and weeds. Participating an excellent way to become more aware of your environment, as well as being a way to show the world that the Wikimedia community can be a valuable component in the academic world (the data we collect here can be of great use to agriculturists, horticulturists, ecologists, among others). If you're the first from your region, 10 plants during one month gets the prize: one of the veteran users will start a key for your region, so that your neighbors will be able to find an easy answer to "what's that plant?" too. --SB_Johnny | 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Georgia articles
By studying the discussion at Talk:Georgia, I see that there appears to be a lot of evidence that Georgia (country) will be moved to Georgia, which means that people are trying so hard now compared to in 2004. Any Wikipedian able to put at their user name space User:(user name)/Wikipedia in 2004 and 2008 that talks about how Misplaced Pages has changed that makes Wikipedians try so hard in 2008 to want Georgia (country) at Georgia?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Reference desk and WP:NOT
I've been pretty active on Misplaced Pages for a couple years. I've never taken advantage of the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk before, mostly because I figure if I'm going to ask fellow volunteers to spend their time working on my questions, there'd better be a darn good reason for it.
Yesterday I posted my first question at the Humanities reference desk, hoping for a little assistance in getting an article over the final hump to FA. My question has gone ignored, which is not in itself a problem.
But what irks me is that the discussions generating the most interest are open-ended chats, like "Who is the greatest king of England" and "What is political correctness."
I feel that maintaining a forum like this, without any pushback on open-ended discussion unrelated to actual research, gives newcomers exploring it a very inaccurate and poor first impression of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure what to do about it, or where to discuss it. But it bugs me. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to bring this up at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk. Algebraist 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I had a problem with the Reference Desk too. It seems too often a forum for trolling. And when I have a legitimate question, like the one about whether I could catch anything from having my girlfriend perform oral sex on me when she had a bad strep throat, I got censored. Average White Dork (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"Reference bot"
There was a discussion in Aug-Sep of last year (here) about making a bot that would change, e.g.
<ref>http://www.easy-ubuntu-linux.com/ubuntu-african-word.html</ref>
into
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.easy-ubuntu-linux.com/ubuntu-african-word.html |title=Ubuntu's African Roots |accessdate=2007-06-06}}</ref>
It looks like someone wrote a script to find pages to fix, but no bot was ever written.
Does anyone know of something like this? e.g. a bot actually exists, or people are working on one?
Thanks! WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Poet laureates
Forgive me if I have come to the wrong place for an answer for my question. I was unable to find another avenue for my inquiry. I was on the page for poet laureates and wanted to know if a singer/songwriter is eligible for the appointment of poet laureate in the United States Congress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresaduplessis (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Misplaced Pages fostering piracy by education Web viewers about DRM technology and DRM-piracy?
Greetings,
I feel concerned about wikipedia unintentionnally fostering DRM-piracy by informing Web viewers (and teens) about ways to crack DRM music titles and methods used. I am not saying that Misplaced Pages.org is directly explaining how to do it, but a malicious user could gain valuable general information on which strategy to operate to breakthrough the DRM licence. The topic about the "analog hole" I feel is very technical and I myself wasn't aware of its existence. One can't foster respect of legality and free sharing of information if that information in turn can help malicious people. Maybe Misplaced Pages should strenghten its ethical code by filtering information according to the audience?
For example, the DRM page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Digital_Rights_Management#Methods_to_bypass_DRM) shouldn't be targeted to teens or young people who would be tempted to crack DRM licences. How to do this, I don't know. It might be utopic, since blocking access according to age, country, or status could be seen as discrimination and technically very difficult or impossible. One of copyright holders dream would be to force Web users to share their identity before having access to Internet (so that they can control who is downloading, etc). But that would BIG BROTHER Level 150 and I hope this will not happen anyday. But if the USA does it, then Europe (and the world)would follow, and citizens would have to respect laws,even related to the Internet. But let's face it: porn sites ask if one is under 18 or not because of the content.(and because it's the law). Could one extend the thinking to strategic information contained within Misplaced Pages articles? Should content editors and writers sign a chart of ethic before postin an article on Misplaced Pages? Filtering of information does not belong to Misplaced Pages, true. It is a matter of personal responsibility and personal ethics, true. But is also a matter of PUBLIC POLICY (so it is the government responsibility to manager what information can be damageful to the public). Private companies don't have to restrain information according the user, but they should do it if we all want to live in a safer and more respectful digital world.
I would not want honest and respectful citizens to have to pay for mistakes made by others.(such as more restrictions on downloading of music, higher fees and pricec to limit piracy, discrimination,etc).
Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavyalex (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The article on Digital rights management has a very negative tone. Wow! What a surprise! Who would have thought such an attitude would be found among WPers! Borock (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Today's featured article
Today's featured article on Stormbot is very educational - and a bit terrifying. It got me to wondering, that since wikipedia placed a negative article about it in a highly exposed location, would they be tempted to overload wikipedia's servers, as they have targeted others in the past? Would it be possible?
Just wondering. If this isn't posted in the right place, please move it. :-) ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or they might be please to get all the attention. :-) Borock (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
General discussion happening weekly on Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)
Several editors continue to add a section each week announcing which games are coming out on Monday. The sources they use aren't reliable sources for the article. They know this, but contiune the sections anyway. I've told them to take it to their talk pages several times, but they refuse. I personally feel an admin needs to stop this. Due to their announcing of games coming out, several IP editors usually add the games to the article (which then gets reverted). If the announcing wouldn't happen, then this problem wouldn't be happening. In my view, this clearly violates the talk header... as it's just general discussion of the subject, and not a way to improve it. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Category: