Article introductions, ~or~ just exactly how stupid are wikipedia admins Options

[Somey]

Is that the official WR doctrine as delivered by a moderator here? Or are you just an obnoxious pompous dumbfuck who comes here for social interaction, as evidenced by your abundant posts that have nothing to do with Wikipedia?

You have to have some hard-liners around, for the sake of credibility. And he's right, actually - any use of the word "barnstar" to refer to some sort of reward (or whatever) for activities on Wikipedia, particularly as might relate to non-Big-Picture ("small picture"?) issues like the style of article intros, isn't likely to be of much use to our "ideal target demographic," though I'll admit it might be of use to some folks.

It would probably be better if he were a bit less strident, though, since even some of our other hard-liners are more accustomed to WP-style enforced civility and get a little freaked out when they're exposed to reactions and responses that don't follow those strictures.

Still, I'm not likely to make an issue of it...

[Random832]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I keep having to remind myself how stupid you are. OK, let me explain; GBG, your comment will inspire me to do the exact opposite and if you were smarter than a doormat you'd know that. But in all honestly I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you so go ahead and have the last word.

It will inspire you to... let the door hit on the ass on the way out? ok, whatever floats your boat I guess.

[TungstenCarbide]

It will inspire you to... let the door hit on the ass on the way out? ok, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Random baby, you've grown a sense of humor. That was pretty good.

[CharlotteWebb]

It will inspire you to... let the door hit on the ass on the way out? ok, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Random baby, you've grown a sense of humor. That was pretty good.

Depends on how hard the door hit one's head on the way in.

[Jon Awbrey]

Fancruft*

What is so magical about the first sentence of articles that they must contain every spelling, pronunciation, translation, transliteration and etymology known? Why must it be there and no where else?

* This tag provided for the Benefit of BayesBots who are Busily Busting their Bayes Brains to recognize fancruft when they see it in future.

[Obesity]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

Readability and lack of professional quality writing are neither unrelated to nor less important than the various other factors that make our beloved website a shitty encyclopedia--factors you harp on, like poor reliability and lack of social responsibility and coherent governance. Peter Damian, who is a competent writer, will naturally be more interested in these matters than you, who are not.

Grumbling WR wankers like to blast WP for its abject amateurism--and rightly so. Poor organization, poor wording and poor presentation are part and parcel of the of unprofessionalism that permeates the website. Such topics should be fair game, especially if we're slogging toward that elusive deep critique for which you yearn so futilely.

It's a rather technical form of literary criticism.

That being said, I don't find it interesting at all, and I'm not sure "Tungsten Carbide" is the right man for the job. Still, the topic should be highly pertinent to those who would sing of Wikipedia's awfulness.

This post has been edited by Obesity: Sun 7th June 2009, 2:16am

[Jon Awbrey]

Deck Chairs on The Titanic —

Paint them a rainbow of pastel colors?

Or leave them that nice natural wood grain?

The passengers and crew are dying to know!

Ja Ja

[Malleus]

Deck Chairs on The Titanic —

Paint them different pastel colors?

Or leave them natural wood grain?

The passengers and crew are dying to know!

Ja Ja

... or perhaps they're just bored with your interminable and incomprehensible "Ja Ja"? I know that I am anyway.

[Jon Awbrey]

… or perhaps they're just bored with your interminable and incomprehensible "Ja Ja"? I know that I am anyway.

Sorry, we're fresh out of hummingbirds …

Ja Ja Ja-Ja-Ja

[EricBarbour]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

As I said in the other thread, Peter's interest in it has a valid reason to be:
the lack of an official-looking, readable format spec for articles results in bullshit like this.
Battelle's article has existed since 2004, and what you see today is the best it's ever been.

[Juliancolton]

Deck Chairs on The Titanic —

Paint them different pastel colors?

Or leave them natural wood grain?

The passengers and crew are dying to know!

Ja Ja

... or perhaps they're just bored with your interminable and incomprehensible "Ja Ja"? I know that I am anyway.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Fancruft*

It is, and a subforum in which to house it is looking increasingly attractive.

[Peter Damian]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

No I'm concerned, as always, that sensible and good and professional work of any kind is being disrupted by the cult of civility.

On exposing paedophiles, I see a paedophile as just another form of POV pusher. I don't really distinguish between one of those, and someone who wants to get their own research 'published' in Wikipedia, or get their theory of life or whatever. From the point of view of encyclopedia writing, both are equally bad.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 7th June 2009, 10:25am

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

No I'm concerned, as always, that sensible and good and professional work of any kind is being disrupted by the cult of civility.

On exposing paedophiles, I see a paedophile as just another form of POV pusher. I don't really distinguish between one of those, and someone who wants to get their own research 'published' in Wikipedia, or get their theory of life or whatever. From the point of view of encyclopedia writing, both are equally bad.

Oh. And I thought you knew the difference. So why did you expect anyone to care about pedophile POV pushing then? Apparently not because this created a unacceptable environment in which adult and child collaboration is encouraged. You where just another encyclopedia fanboy. My bad.

[Somey]

Oh. And I thought you knew the difference. So why did you expect anyone to care about pedophile POV pushing then? Apparently not because this created a unacceptable environment in which adult and child collaboration is encouraged. You where just another encyclopedia fanboy. My bad.

I don't think I'd go so far as to refer to Peter as a "fanboy," of course, but to some extent I'd have to agree - saying that one doesn't distinguish between pro-pedophilia POV-pushing (hey, alliteration!) and other forms of POV-pushing seems a bit disingenuous. I mean, if someone really wants to make Wikipedia say that a particular species of orchid is more popular in Argentina than some other species of orchid, that person may seem obnoxious to (some) other Argentinian orchid afficionados, but that person isn't likely to cause maximum general drama and really bring WP into serious disrepute. (I'll admit that's probably a straw-man argument, but hopefully you get the general drift.)

I mean, basically, if you're discussing issues related to how article introductions are worded, and you suddenly mention pedophilia, you might as well admit that you're through with talking about the wording of article introductions.

[Peter Damian]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

No I'm concerned, as always, that sensible and good and professional work of any kind is being disrupted by the cult of civility.

On exposing paedophiles, I see a paedophile as just another form of POV pusher. I don't really distinguish between one of those, and someone who wants to get their own research 'published' in Wikipedia, or get their theory of life or whatever. From the point of view of encyclopedia writing, both are equally bad.

Oh. And I thought you knew the difference. So why did you expect anyone to care about pedophile POV pushing then? Apparently not because this created a unacceptable environment in which adult and child collaboration is encouraged. You where just another encyclopedia fanboy. My bad.

I said, 'from the point of view of encyclopedia writing they are equally bad'. Someone who pushes the view in a major encyclopedia that child-love is OK, or that pedophiles are harmless, or that 'pedophilia' does not mean the same as 'child abuse' and other subtle forms of propaganda is more dangerous in my view than adult-child collaboration on the web. If I have a concern about the latter (and I do, and I have children) then it is more practical to address this concern in RL, such as involvement in the governance of organisations where this is a known danger, such as scouting, school and and so on.

I don't know why you are calling me a fanboy.

I mean, basically, if you're discussing issues related to how article introductions are worded, and you suddenly mention pedophilia, you might as well admit that you're through with talking about the wording of article introductions.

Same reply as above. Article introductions are irrelevant, it's just that I see someone who clearly understands very well how it should be done, running foul of the cult of civility.

As for the cult of civility, I see it as a form of idealism according to which anyone can become good at something by politeness.

Saying that one doesn't distinguish between pro-pedophilia POV-pushing (hey, alliteration!) and other forms of POV-pushing seems a bit disingenuous.

As I said above, the concern about adult-child interaction on the web is a quite different concern from the worry about propaganda that can have dangerous results. For example, if pedophiles managed via Wikipedia to promote the view that professional adult-child relationships never lead to any danger or harm, and this led to less stringent checks on child-workers or whatever, then the potential danger is huge. Surely you see this?

[Somey]

Article introductions are irrelevant, it's just that I see someone who clearly understands very well how it should be done, running foul of the cult of civility.

As for the cult of civility, I see it as a form of idealism according to which anyone can become good at something by politeness.

That sounds more like cynicism than idealism to me...

As I said above, the concern about adult-child interaction on the web is a quite different concern from the worry about propaganda that can have dangerous results. For example, if pedophiles managed via Wikipedia to promote the view that professional adult-child relationships never lead to any danger or harm, and this led to less stringent checks on child-workers or whatever, then the potential danger is huge. Surely you see this?

I do see that, but I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying, then.

So let's try to get back on-topic - would you say that the "cult of civility," which I agree exists and is a serious problem in terms of achieving quality, accuracy, consistency, etc., is fueled and perpetuated more by younger (say, under-18) users than by older ones? And that perhaps they use civility as a gaming strategy, or more importantly, that they seek to recognize and idetify various people's pet peeves (like the excessive transliterations in certain article introductions), and take advantage of them to settle scores and/or get rid of "undesirables"? That seems a little too much like deep-thinking to me - IOW, it seems more likely (to me) that it they're simply reacting that way in any given incident because they either think they're expected to, or else they're just defending what they see as their "turf" from anyone who might spoil their personal apple cart.

[Peter Damian]

So let's try to get back on-topic - would you say that the "cult of civility," which I agree exists and is a serious problem in terms of achieving quality, accuracy, consistency, etc., is fueled and perpetuated more by younger (say, under-18) users than by older ones? And that perhaps they use civility as a gaming strategy, or more importantly, that they seek to recognize and idetify various people's pet peeves (like the excessive transliterations in certain article introductions), and take advantage of them to settle scores and/or get rid of "undesirables"? That seems a little too much like deep-thinking to me - IOW, it seems more likely (to me) that it they're simply reacting that way in any given incident because they either think they're expected to, or else they're just defending what they see as their "turf" from anyone who might spoil their personal apple cart.

My dislike of the cult is that it is a form of egalitarianism. There is this genuine belief that the quality of Wikipedia is down to the collective effort of hundreds of worker bees making small changes that somehow add up to a good quality result. This despite much evidence to the contrary that each good article is the result of a small handful of editors, or even one. If you believe this, you will tend to believe that no contributor, however apparently bad or poor, must not be discouraged. Therefore you will believe that incivility will drive off potentially useful contributors and harm the project.

The reality is rather the opposite. Good contributors in my experience tend to recognise each other's qualities and they do work together. But they are easily put off by the cranks and incompetents who want an equal right in decisions about articles. They are especially put off by the cult promoted by the marshmallow contingent such as Herbert.

Thus it is the cult of incivility that is destroying the project.

On the question of whether it is the younger editors who are guilty of this or not. Don't really know. I think young people generally are much less cynical than older ones, and are more easily drawn to cult-like belief systems. The belief system in this case is the belief in 'wisdom of crowds' and a total willingness to submit to the power and will of the collective whole. Think of the cultural revolution in China which (according to legend) was mostly young people finding good pianists and smashing their fingers with hammers.

[edit] I can't find anything about the story of the pianist who had his fingers crushed by the Red Guards, but this book is quite good

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yrkpx6i...num=2#PPA184,M1

The negative aspect of the Cultural Revolution was "the result of a decision to mobilise millions of immature young people in a highly charged political atmosphere, to encourage them to engage in 'revolutionary struggle' against vaguely defined targets, and to denounce as 'suppression of the masses' any attempt to bring them under leadership or control"

[edit] - The pianist was Liu Shikun, but there is some doubt whether the story is true. There is no article about Shikun in Wikipedia!

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 7th June 2009, 4:55pm

[Somey]

...Good contributors in my experience tend to recognise each other's qualities and they do work together. But they are easily put off by the cranks and incompetents who want an equal right in decisions about articles. They are especially put off by the cult promoted by the marshmallow contingent such as Herbert.

Thus it is the cult of incivility that is destroying the project.

Then maybe we should be doing a better job of distinguishing between "users," which Wikipedia has lots of, and "talent," which Wikipedia has a shortage of. Not that anybody is going to take our word for it that any given user is actually talented, of course...

I think young people generally are much less cynical than older ones, and are more easily drawn to cult-like belief systems. The belief system in this case is the belief in 'wisdom of crowds' and a total willingness to submit to the power and will of the collective whole.

Personally, I'd say it's more of a belief that one's own opinions and preferences are correctly representative of the collective whole when they either aren't or there's no real way of knowing, but that's probably a quibble.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

Readability and lack of professional quality writing are neither unrelated to nor less important than the various other factors that make our beloved website a shitty encyclopedia--factors you harp on, like poor reliability and lack of social responsibility and coherent governance. Peter Damian, who is a competent writer, will naturally be more interested in these matters than you, who are not.

Grumbling WR wankers like to blast WP for its abject amateurism--and rightly so. Poor organization, poor wording and poor presentation are part and parcel of the of unprofessionalism that permeates the website. Such topics should be fair game, especially if we're slogging toward that elusive deep critique for which you yearn so futilely.

It's a rather technical form of literary criticism.

That being said, I don't find it interesting at all, and I'm not sure "Tungsten Carbide" is the right man for the job. Still, the topic should be highly pertinent to those who would sing of Wikipedia's awfulness.

...and I'm not sure "Tungsten Carbide" is the right man for the job.
I've never claimed to be a good writer, but you don't have to be a good writer to see that introduction is fucked.

That being said, I don't find it interesting at all
There are a lot of posts on this site I don't find interesting, but that doesn't mean I go and harass the posters, like that asshole GlassBeadGame.