Wikipedia policy and administration and mature editors, Musing about a Fellowship idea Options

[Eppur si muove]

I was a graduate way before 2007, as I believe was PD. The problem Wikipedia is inherently unable to address is that adults generally don't take kindly to being treated like children, therefore it's a project for children, not adults.

That was the best evidence of your age that I could find from your user page archive. Something did make me think that you were older.

And yes childish tellings off like this and sanctimonious claptrap like this and this do rather discourage adults from participating. Jimbo - who, judging by his reaction, must be the only school ma'am to have made money out of hosting pornographic images - models to the kids how things are done on Wikipedia. Behave like a character from Pygmalion whenever someone is a bit rude and whatever you do don't investigate what has got someone so annoyed in the first place. Kids are used to this behaviour from adults and are also prone to black-and-white thinking where something is wrong whatever the reasons. Mature adults normally have more sophisticated ways of looking at things, though absolute monarchs tend to get corrupted. (One good thing about the American system is that it prevents the likes of Thatcher and Blair being able to go on until they are even more convinced that they are right than they were in the first place. Jimbo will be able to carry on as supremo until he becomes every bit as dotty as Ghaddafi.)

Anyway, if I were to put the case to Wikimedia that they need to look at how to retain people who are old enough to be the parents of some of those admins who tell them off, what sort of points should I raise?

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Fri 23rd December 2011, 10:06pm

[Eppur si muove]

And since when were adults over 22, anyways? Where did that number come from? Might as well choose over 30.

21 is given as the median age of Wikipedians. 21 is also probably the age at which most Wikipedians leave full time education. Therefore roughly half of Wikipedians are used to being instructed on what to do and to being surrounded by rules. At 22 someone is only beginning an independent life. Once someone is 30 or 40, they are used to deciding how to live their life and to not having to answer to someone for everything they do.

Wikipedia is set up to manage the behaviour of the young not that of the old.

... I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

Why shouldn't short temper be consistent with collaborative working?

Because the rules are made by people who haven't worked in a proper workplace where arguments do happen and where people who hate each other's guts for a while do learn to get on later without the manager locking them out of the workplace for 24 hours.

This post has been edited by Eppur si muove: Sat 24th December 2011, 2:18am

[Malleus]

Defending your right to say "fuck" and "cunt" with impunity is not the mark of maturity. But I suppose if you only graduated from kindergarten a little before 2007 I suppose there's an excuse for mistaking a potty-mouth for sophistication.

The point that you and your fellow sanctimonious idiots seem to be incapable of understanding is that if it's OK for for Jimbo to target specific editors as "toxic" then it equally ought to be OK for me to make a general comment about some administrators being "dishonest cunts". I really can't believe that anyone could make a credible case otherwise.

Hopefully, if the case is accepted, we may in the future see Jimbo blocked for his own incivilty.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 23rd December 2011, 10:38pm

[Malleus]

I was thinking more of the situations where somebody makes patently idiotic remarks and short temper is the only way to resolve it.

I will freely admit that I have no patience for fools, never have, never will.

[Malleus]

Anyway, if I were to put the case to Wikimedia that they need to look at how to retain people who are old enough to be the parents of some of those admins who tell them off, what sort of points should I raise?

I can't now remember where the discussion took place ... that's what happens when you get old, you forget stuff ... now where was I? Oh yes, in the early days of the gender-imbalance wars someone suggested trying to recruit retired ladies, who might have time on their hands and be willing to help out. No idea what became of the idea, nothing probably.

[TungstenCarbide]

But do those battles ever go anywhere? I mean, dear god, the biologists still can't decide where to classify the lophotrochozoans and they've been arguing about it for 20 years now. Make then argue about something that's actually bigger and it would be hundreds of years before any sort of consensus is made.

All the while, both sides will be trying to push their argument, even if it involves including fallacious information and faulty data.

Not sure how many times this has been stated here, Seren, but tortured definitions of 'civility' are frequently used to block, ban and silence editors. This mechanism is applied with different standards to different editors, depending on who's popular at the moment, and is frequently used to 'silence' someone from the debate, not because saying a bad word did any harm. Blocking someone for saying a bad word from a project that celebrates its porn collected under the banner of anti-censorship is simply ridiculous.

For a long time Wikipedia blocking policy made no mention of 'civility' or 'personal attacks'. The blocking policy only mentioned 'disruption'. An admin had to apply judgment. Eventually, most of the admins with solid judgement left the project in disgust and official Wikipedia policy went from a handful of paragraphs to megabytes of horseshit.

Here's a funny quote I found while reading about this policy;

... So lets look at the last few days of edits by the person who added the "persistent personal attacks" to the block policy: ass clownery, delete nominator, Shut up and quit being a disgrace, Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:21pm

[Malleus]

"Megabytes of horseshit" is about right. The thing I continue to find strange though is that Jimbo and his acolytes can be as offensive as they like, and often are, but the rules never seem to apply to them.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:26pm

[Kelly Martin]

On Wikipedia you can be accused of "personal attacks" for attacking unidentified, hypothetical individuals. These people have no concept of what civility is, other than as a weapon to be used in their MMORPG.

[Malleus]

On Wikipedia you can be accused of "personal attacks" for attacking unidentified, hypothetical individuals.

I have been, several times. But I really have no understanding at all of what "attack" means in WikiSpeak, so maybe not so surprising.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:34pm

[iii]

But most of the "adult" people who get blocked are blocked because they were insulting to other people (not counting sockpuppetry and all the other possibilities).

Does that mean that the "adults" are more like children than the "children", I wonder?

It is childlike to propose that it isn't acting like an adult to insult someone else.

And since when were adults over 22, anyways? Where did that number come from? Might as well choose over 30.

Sounds like an excellent idea. Then add something like no one can be an administrator unless they are an adult. You will see some amazing changes at Wikipedia with that simple modification.

Defending your right to say "fuck" and "cunt" with impunity is not the mark of maturity.

Neither is it the mark of immaturity.

Perhaps it's more that adults are so fascinated by how widespread these words have become with the internet that they now think it actually brings some sort of emphasis when they speak.

Hint: It doesn't.

Hint: Some people use those words off the internet too. :gasp:

[Silver seren]

But most of the "adult" people who get blocked are blocked because they were insulting to other people (not counting sockpuppetry and all the other possibilities).

Does that mean that the "adults" are more like children than the "children", I wonder?

It is childlike to propose that it isn't acting like an adult to insult someone else.

So, essentially, you're saying that it is proper for adults to insult one another? I think insulting others is one of those things that everyone should strive not to do.

And since when were adults over 22, anyways? Where did that number come from? Might as well choose over 30.

Sounds like an excellent idea. Then add something like no one can be an administrator unless they are an adult. You will see some amazing changes at Wikipedia with that simple modification.

Nothing would ever get done. There's already not enough administrators dedicated to do the background work that's needed.

Perhaps it's more that adults are so fascinated by how widespread these words have become with the internet that they now think it actually brings some sort of emphasis when they speak.

Hint: It doesn't.

Hint: Some people use those words off the internet too. :gasp:

Yes, they do, almost always in a situation that expresses their trashy low-class nature.

The duplicity of the term "adult language" is actually pretty interesting. Because things that are labeled adult are always always related to sex or other things of a prurient nature. So, truthfully, being adult has little to do with knowledge or maturity, but it has to do with being overly interested in sex.

[Malleus]

The duplicity of the term "adult language" is actually pretty interesting. Because things that are labeled adult are always always related to sex or other things of a prurient nature. So, truthfully, being adult has little to do with knowledge or maturity, but it has to do with being overly interested in sex.

Not really. I think you'll find that's a characteristic of basement-dwellers like yourself.

[Silver seren]

The duplicity of the term "adult language" is actually pretty interesting. Because things that are labeled adult are always always related to sex or other things of a prurient nature. So, truthfully, being adult has little to do with knowledge or maturity, but it has to do with being overly interested in sex.

Not really. I think you'll find that's a characteristic of basement-dwellers like yourself.

And, thus, the language of an "adult" is fully expressed.

[Kelly Martin]

One of the characteristics of adulthood is the ability to evaluate a novel situation and ascertain what appropriate conduct would be without having to resort to a rulebook for advice. Another is the understanding that no rule is universal in application.

Of course, a lot of people never reach adulthood no matter how old they get.

[iii]

So, essentially, you're saying that it is proper for adults to insult one another? I think insulting others is one of those things that everyone should strive not to do.

Grasshopper, do not confuse what is for what ought to be.

Nothing would ever get done.

That would be preferable.

Yes, they do, almost always in a situation that expresses their trashy low-class nature.

Ah, I see we're bringing class into it now! My, how the low-class are trash! Let's not confuse them for the hoi polloi, though. The truly unwashed tend to be sucking off the teats of parents who failed to teach their offspring how to wash themselves. In other words, a great many Wikipedia editors.

The duplicity of the term "adult language" is actually pretty interesting. Because things that are labeled adult are always always related to sex or other things of a prurient nature. So, truthfully, being adult has little to do with knowledge or maturity, but it has to do with being overly interested in sex.

You should read some Freud. You'd have a blast reading him, grasshopper.

[Peter Damian]

True, I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

I graduated in 1977, so probably one of the oldest members here. I have encountered many different styles of collaboration, and all of them worked in one way or another. What Wikipedians call 'collaboration' is something else, which I have never encountered.

[edit] Deleted references to Cultural Revolution and Khmer Rouge in case of Godwinism.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th December 2011, 8:47am

[dogbiscuit]

What Wikipedians call 'collaboration' is something else, which I have never encountered.

Though that isn't really true though, is it? You have encountered it probably every day of your life, and when you encounter it in the real world, you recognise it for what it is - bullying and manipulation.

[lilburne]

The duplicity of the term "adult language" is actually pretty interesting. Because things that are labeled adult are always always related to sex or other things of a prurient nature. So, truthfully, being adult has little to do with knowledge or maturity, but it has to do with being overly interested in sex.

Not really. I think you'll find that's a characteristic of basement-dwellers like yourself.

And, thus, the language of an "adult" is fully expressed.

Listen up dipshit! There are times when only strong language is sufficient to convey to some motherfucking moron that their cuntish behaviour is unwelcome. Of course we well know that the total fuckwit will use the language by which the contempt is delivered as some cause célèbre to justify the continuing to fill their head with rotting garbage and puking it up all over the fucking place.

[Malleus]

True, I suppose adults are often seen as short-tempered, especially in an academic setting. Not really the types to be working on something collaborative.

I graduated in 1977, so probably one of the oldest members here. I have encountered many different styles of collaboration, and all of them worked in one way or another. What Wikipedians call 'collaboration' is something else, which I have never encountered.

[edit] Deleted references to Cultural Revolution and Khmer Rouge in case of Godwinism.

What Wikipedians call collaboration might more properly be called submission.

[Ottava]

I deal in politics in addition to academia. In politics, everyone yells, fights, attacks each other etc., until the sides are chosen and then either one side prevails or a compromise is worked out. There is no other way to go about it unless you have overwhelming numbers.

There is no real difference between what I see every day and what goes on at Wikipedia and has gone on since the beginning. That wont ever change, so why do people pretend otherwise?