Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Text replacement - "Wiki People" to "Wiki people"
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "TalkHeader" to "Talk header") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Wiki People" to "Wiki people") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::I would see nothing wrong with writing such an article. On Meta-Wiki, you might not have as much free speech, because they could claim to see your continued complaints about the matter as disruptive or harassing. But [http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Public-Relations-And-Journalism.htm the story isn't complete without interviewing the people who are most affected by the action being taken]. Who will interview you? No one, because they don't care or they've already been kicked off Meta. | :::I would see nothing wrong with writing such an article. On Meta-Wiki, you might not have as much free speech, because they could claim to see your continued complaints about the matter as disruptive or harassing. But [http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/What-Is-The-Difference-Between-Public-Relations-And-Journalism.htm the story isn't complete without interviewing the people who are most affected by the action being taken]. Who will interview you? No one, because they don't care or they've already been kicked off Meta. | ||
:::So, the involved party (i.e. you) has to put on his journalist hat and write an account of the situation from his point of view. But as we saw in my case, such essays are not welcome at Meta. However, you could post a lengthier account to your bliki (or other website) and summarize it on a relevant page here. Then others could fact-check your claims and edit your summary if needed to make sure it fairly presents what happened and gives both sides of the story. | :::So, the involved party (i.e. you) has to put on his [[:Category:Journalism|journalist]] hat and write an account of the situation from his point of view. But as we saw in my case, such essays are not welcome at Meta. However, you could post a lengthier account to your bliki (or other website) and summarize it on a relevant page here. Then others could fact-check your claims and edit your summary if needed to make sure it fairly presents what happened and gives both sides of the story. | ||
:::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | :::There never was a requirement that a person be a wiki founder in order to have an article about him posted here. He merely needed to be a "wiki person". Anyone who has ever edited a wiki might fall in that category, if it's broadly construed. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::In the present cases, articles on wiki users are being created by someone who has specific interest in the users, often involved in conflict with the user, or frustrated that a debate was avoided. The information presented is highly selected, presenting a user with a complex history as if he could be reduced to a few highly selected snippets. | ::In the present cases, articles on wiki users are being created by someone who has specific interest in the users, often involved in conflict with the user, or frustrated that a debate was avoided. The information presented is highly selected, presenting a user with a complex history as if he could be reduced to a few highly selected snippets. | ||
::If the article is worth keeping, yes, the intention of the creator becomes irrelevant. But what I've begun to do is to examine a ''pattern of behavior,'' that will, if allowed to continue, foster, invite, and amplify disruption here. | ::If the article is worth keeping, yes, the intention of the creator becomes irrelevant. But what I've begun to do is to examine a ''pattern of behavior,'' that will, if allowed to continue, foster, invite, and amplify disruption here. | ||
::It is not that it is impossible for this wiki to host "wiki criticism." It is that the structure here is not designed to handle it. Lecuosticte is acting outside of traditions here. The page on [[:Category:Wiki | ::It is not that it is impossible for this wiki to host "wiki criticism." It is that the structure here is not designed to handle it. Lecuosticte is acting outside of traditions here. The page on [[:Category:Wiki people]], which he attempted to change, has | ||
:::''this is a list of people who consider themselves to be part of the wiki community and their associations to various Wiki sites | :::''this is a list of people who consider themselves to be part of the wiki community and their associations to various Wiki sites | ||
:::''Please add your name to this list by creating a new page for yourself. | :::''Please add your name to this list by creating a new page for yourself. | ||
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
==Wiki people== | ==Wiki people== | ||
Perhaps you'd care to weigh in on [[WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Criteria for Wiki | Perhaps you'd care to weigh in on [[WikiIndex talk:Community portal#Criteria for Wiki people pages|this discussion]]. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
==Two concerns== | ==Two concerns== | ||
So, Koavf is concerned about WikiIndex being used to promote users and wikis, while you're concerned about WikiIndex being used to denigrate users and wikis. {{u|MarvelZuvembie}} was saying, "Wiki | So, Koavf is concerned about WikiIndex being used to promote users and wikis, while you're concerned about WikiIndex being used to denigrate users and wikis. {{u|MarvelZuvembie}} was saying, "Wiki people pages were originally generated by the people themselves. I think it should stay that way. That's my criteria" while it seemed like Koavf's concern was that if people created pages on themselves, they would tend to be self-promotional. | ||
Basically, it sounds like the only people who can create anything here are those who have no agenda, but why would such people bother? People usually create content about stuff they're interested in, whether because they have a strong like or dislike for it. It's kinda similar to how survey results tend to be biased either extremely positively or extremely negatively, because the only people who bother to fill out surveys are usually customers who are either extremely pleased or displeased with a company's product. | Basically, it sounds like the only people who can create anything here are those who have no agenda, but why would such people bother? People usually create content about stuff they're interested in, whether because they have a strong like or dislike for it. It's kinda similar to how survey results tend to be biased either extremely positively or extremely negatively, because the only people who bother to fill out surveys are usually customers who are either extremely pleased or displeased with a company's product. | ||
| Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
:::::::It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies ''want'' it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens. | :::::::It's not my wiki. The policies lie about what it is. They say what those who write the policies ''want'' it to be, or imagine that it is, but not what it actually is. And as users realize this, they leave, mostly quietly. If they try to change it, within the structures that have been set up, they burn out. So I have Plan B, which happens to be Wikiversity. Wikipedia is the tail wagging the dog. Encyclopedias were written by academics, who, in academia, develop deep knowledge of subjects. One of the Wikipedia tropes is that "neutral editors" can casually assess evidence and sources on complex subjects, that can take years to understand. So, create the deep study! And see what happens. | ||
:::::::So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream journal, to be considered reliable source. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited. | :::::::So far, I made one attempt to add a sister wiki link to the WP article on cold fusion, to the Wikiversity resource. It was immediately removed by a blatant factional editor. I was topic banned again shortly after that, after arranging for a recent peer-reviewed review of the field, in a mainstream [[:Category:Journal|journal]], to be considered [[reliable source]]. A difficult discussion ensued, with editors who don't like the conclusions of that review, arguing tendentiously against it. The conclusion: RS. And I was almost immediately topic banned. The source is still listed in the bibliography, but no fact has been sourced to it, last I looked, and it radically contradicts what is shown in far weaker tertiary and media sources, which are used and cited. | ||
:::::::Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation. | :::::::Then, another editor added a link, a bit over a year ago. Immediately removed, same person, I think. Basically, there are those who will resist allowing readers of wikipedia to access deeper wiki resources. They are violating Wikipedia policy and consensus, but to fix this takes users who understand how to handle situations like that, and those that do it have often been banned. Most just give up. I address the "copyright" issue on one page, and it took weeks of process, to get one link in. Last I looked, it was still there, there were attempts to remove it, but enough editors now watching that they were reverted. But -- notice! the ban discussion repeats the rejected claim of copyright violation. | ||
| Line 282: | Line 282: | ||
:::::Satisfactorily according to whom? Who are these SJWs? I'm seeing an entire fantasy world, a caricature of reality, not reality, and a series of fantasy people, each of whom thinks the next is even worse. This is the sea lion I imagine, from the cartoon: it will never go away, until and unless the woman agrees completely with it. Real sea lions are far easier to satisfy. Say what you like, just don't touch their fish. Or threaten their pups. Or even ''look like'' you are threatening their pups. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | :::::Satisfactorily according to whom? Who are these SJWs? I'm seeing an entire fantasy world, a caricature of reality, not reality, and a series of fantasy people, each of whom thinks the next is even worse. This is the sea lion I imagine, from the cartoon: it will never go away, until and unless the woman agrees completely with it. Real sea lions are far easier to satisfy. Say what you like, just don't touch their fish. Or threaten their pups. Or even ''look like'' you are threatening their pups. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
==Weigh in on [[WikiIndex: | ==Weigh in on [[WikiIndex:Proposal: domain name change#Poll]]?== | ||
I like to inform You about a likely [[WikiIndex: | I like to inform You about a likely [[WikiIndex:Proposal: domain name change|decision to change the domain of our wiki]]. Maybe You have an opinion on this, suggest additional names even. Please take part in the decision finding process. --22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) | ||
:Thanks. I did. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | :Thanks. I did. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
==Yawn== | ==Yawn== | ||
This place sure got boring. I think once a wiki becomes [[:Category:ByInvitation]], its days tend to be kinda numbered, since the impediment to editing prevents much new blood from coming in. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (PDT) | This place sure got boring. I think once a wiki becomes [[:Category:ByInvitation]], its days tend to be kinda numbered, since the impediment to editing prevents much new blood from coming in. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (PDT) | ||