 Who's Who Wouldn't Wannabees Of WP:BIOLOGGY, Ppl Want 2 Know Wot Ppl In Da Know Want — Not ! |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| Jonny Cache |
  Wed 15th August 2007, 11:56am
Post
#1
|
 τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε  Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs  |
Wikipedia Review's Concluding Unscientific Post Survey —
Or, Fear And Trembling And The [Sic]ness Unto Death — Research Question. How Many Of Those Who Know The Ins and Outs (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) Of Wikipediot Ways Would Wish To Have Their Own (¬WP:OWN) Wikipedia Biography? Numb Hypothesis (H_0 = H Sub Zero) — Kindly supplied by JoseClutch, if expressed somewhat non-standardly as a holy unbiased (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) conclusion instead of hypothesis: QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 13th August 2007, 1:03pm)  The end conclusion I draw is that guys like Brandt are extreme abberations, not representative of anything at all. Nota Bene. The methodology of this study is not intended to maintain Wikipedia Biographies of subjects who do not wish to have them, but simply to assess those wishes. Note To Volunteer Pollsters. Be sure to state the notability of the polled subject in your polling stub, so that the subject or his/her representatives will not be inclined to WP:WEASELOUT with a lamo xcuse like WP:CSD#A7. Dynamic Page — Post your data items below and I will accumulate them this page I opine that a far more informative study would begin with a population whose members know a whole lot about the ways that Wikipedia really operates — whether they own up in public to the Reality Of Wikipedia (ROW) or not — and simply start Wikipedia Biography stubs on them. Indeed, a number of these have already been started. That solves the Funding And Respondent Total (FART) problem, since the polled population would be sure to get Wind, so to speak, of the Stub-Probe-As-Questionaire (SPAQ) pretty quickly, you can bet. Then all we have to do is sit back and count the All-Fired-Debacles (AFD's) that ensue. Come to think of it, I already did a kind of a pilot study for this, when I noticed a prominent Wikipediot who got stubbed one day — and it took only a few hours for his whole life in wikispace to flash before our eyes and vanish. So let us start our list of Wikipollees like this:
 This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 15th August 2007, 1:16pm |
   |
 
|
| LamontStormstar |
Wed 15th August 2007, 12:03pm
Post
#2
|
 Postmaster Group: Regulars Posts: 2,359 Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am Member No.: 342 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 15th August 2007, 4:56am) Give me a sec to organize this — lotsa stuff to pull from other places ... Jonny Okay. |
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Wed 15th August 2007, 12:44pm
Post
#3
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Dynamic Page —
I'll use this page to collect new data to be merged.
This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 20th March 2008, 1:51pm |
|
|
|
| Jonny Cache |
Thu 20th March 2008, 12:44pm
Post
#4
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
While we're all raving about how Wunnerfool it would be to have a WP:BIO, maybe it's a timely time to update the data on this thread —
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 15th August 2007, 7:56am) Wikipedia Review's Concluding Unscientific Post Survey — Or, Fear And Trembling And The [Sic]ness Unto Death — Research Question. How Many Of Those Who Know The Ins and Outs (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) Of Wikipediot Ways Would Wish To Have Their Own (¬WP:OWN) Wikipedia Biography? Numb Hypothesis (H_0 = H Sub Zero) — Kindly supplied by JoseClutch, if expressed somewhat non-standardly as a holy unbiased (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) conclusion instead of hypothesis: QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 13th August 2007, 1:03pm) The end conclusion I draw is that guys like Brandt are extreme abberations, not representative of anything at all. Nota Bene. The methodology of this study is not intended to maintain Wikipedia Biographies of subjects who do not wish to have them, but simply to assess those wishes. Note To Volunteer Pollsters. Be sure to state the notability of the polled subject in your polling stub, so that the subject or his/her representatives will not be inclined to WP:WEASELOUT with a lamo xcuse like WP:CSD#A7. Dynamic Page — Post your data items below and I will accumulate them this page I opine that a far more informative study would begin with a population whose members know a whole lot about the ways that Wikipedia really operates — whether they own up in public to the Reality Of Wikipedia (ROW) or not — and simply start Wikipedia Biography stubs on them. Indeed, a number of these have already been started. That solves the Funding And Respondent Total (FART) problem, since the polled population would be sure to get Wind, so to speak, of the Stub-Probe-As-Questionaire (SPAQ) pretty quickly, you can bet. Then all we have to do is sit back and count the All-Fired-Debacles (AFD's) that ensue. Come to think of it, I already did a kind of a pilot study for this, when I noticed a prominent Wikipediot who got stubbed one day — and it took only a few hours for his whole life in wikispace to flash before our eyes and vanish. So let us start our list of Wikipollees like this:
I know that all of you Full Content Fools are just dying to get back to work on filling in these e-gregious gaps — and if you don't put your walk where your talk is then, Boy, do we have a St. Fu 4U !!! Jonny This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 20th March 2008, 12:52pm |
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:06am
Post
#5
|
 τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Moderators Posts: 6,737 Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am From: Meat Puppet Nation Member No.: 5,619 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Please help update and continue this survey by revising the above list of BIG WIKs and writing a Wikipedia Biography or Stub for those Unstrung Heroes who are currently deprived of their just and long-overdue glory.
Jon This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:10am |
|
|
|
| Kato |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:22am
Post
#6
|
 dhd Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm Member No.: 767 |
Eric Moeller (User:Eloquence) came on to this board once, and wrote :
QUOTE(Eloquence @ Wed 12th April 2006, 6:41pm) Giving such an individual the choice not to have an article written about them is an obscene suggestion if your goal is to build a general reference work. He also wrote on one of the Brandt afds: QUOTE(=Eric Moeller / Eloquence) "[If] any person who doesn't like their biography could request it to be deleted, [this] would result in huge gaps in our coverage. WP is an encyclopedia which attempts to accumulate the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge which people find tolerable." I hadn't noticed it until now, but the damn hypocrite went and nominated his own biography for deletion a couple of months later http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...rik_M%C3%B6ller |
|
|
|
| Somey |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:26am
Post
#7
|
 Can't actually moderate Group: Moderators Posts: 11,814 Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 |
Just off the top of my head, I can see you left out Elonka_Dunin... Article currently under full protection, apparently.
Oh, and also Florence_Devouard - that one's not protected, though. Someone (User:Radiant!) deleted an article on Dave Gerard back in January 2006, but I doubt it was a real "article," if you know what I mean... An "attack page" on Tim Starling was deleted in September 2007 - the article must have mentioned who his employer was, I reckon. Tim_Starling is now a redirect to MediaWiki - that happened only about a month ago. |
|
|
|
| Kato |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:39am
Post
#8
|
|
dhd Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm Member No.: 767 |
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 6:26am) Just off the top of my head, I can see you left out Elonka_Dunin... Article currently under full protection, apparently. Oh, and also Florence_Devouard - that one's not protected, though. The Elonka article was protected after someone replaced the page with "Elonka has a cookie monster chin". Hard to argue with that. I see she has a Polish version, and a Simple English version which she started herself. The German version was deleted which must have been a hoot. Eric's compatriots obviously didn't think facts about Elonka met the criteria of "Sum of All Human Knowledge". By the way, I had a few beers with a friend last night who is significantly more notable than Elonka. He was on prime time TV just the other week speaking to a crowd of some of the most famous people in the world. But there is no article on him. We're both glad about that and I won't say who it is to protect him. But the comparison puts pay to the whole shambles of notability and subject input -- and Eric Moeller's bullshit. |
|
|
|
| Somey |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:51am
Post
#9
|
|
Can't actually moderate Group: Moderators Posts: 11,814 Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 |
I'd be interested to know what percentage of WP high mucky-mucks actually would like to see articles about them in mainspace. My guess would be around one percent...
Whether you think it's good or bad, I don't think there's much question that WP, as a community and a system, implicitly shames people who attempt to use their status as admins (or whatever) to promote themselves. Look at how they treat David Shankbone, for example, despite the fact that he contributes tons of "free content." Admittedly, Shankbone can be rather obnoxious, and many of his contributions are completely unsuitable for children, but if self-aggrandizement is really what he wants, why not give it to him? Will they get paid any less because of it? |
|
|
|
| Moulton |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 10:39am
Post
#10
|
 Anthropologist from Mars Group: Contributors Posts: 10,220 Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Speaking of BLPs, David Shankbone, and other notable vs not able characters, don't overlook Episode 10 of Not The Wikipedia Weekly (WP:NTWW), which features Shankbone, Seth Finkelstein, and Matt Sanchez as guest panelists. Durova, Filll, Kim Bruning, Adrian/DorfTrottel, and a few other Wikipedians discuss with their guest panelists the general problem of BLPs and why the problem is so unfixable.
Here is the shortcut link directly to the MP3 audio. |
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 12:42pm
Post
#11
|
|
τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Moderators Posts: 6,737 Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am From: Meat Puppet Nation Member No.: 5,619 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Dynamic Data Post —
It being a nuisance to continue serving as the litter-ary executor of Jonny Cache's cached e-state, I will copy the dynamic page at the top of this thread here, and try to update it as time warrants. QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 15th August 2007, 7:56am) Wikipedia Review's Concluding Unscientific Post Survey — Or, Fear And Trembling And The [Sic]ness Unto Death — Research Question. How Many Of Those Who Know The Ins and Outs (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) Of Wikipediot Ways Would Wish To Have Their Own (¬WP:OWN) Wikipedia Biography? Numb Hypothesis (H_0 = H Sub Zero) — Kindly supplied by JoseClutch, if expressed somewhat non-standardly as a holy unbiased (¤ cough ¤ cough ¤) conclusion instead of hypothesis: QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Mon 13th August 2007, 1:03pm) The end conclusion I draw is that guys like Brandt are extreme abberations, not representative of anything at all. Nota Bene. The methodology of this study is not intended to maintain Wikipedia Biographies of subjects who do not wish to have them, but simply to assess those wishes. Note To Volunteer Pollsters. Be sure to state the notability of the polled subject in your polling stub, so that the subject or his/her representatives will not be inclined to WP:WEASELOUT with a lamo xcuse like WP:CSD#A7. Dynamic Page — Post your data items below and I will accumulate them this page I opine that a far more informative study would begin with a population whose members know a whole lot about the ways that Wikipedia really operates — whether they own up in public to the Reality Of Wikipedia (ROW) or not — and simply start Wikipedia Biography stubs on them. Indeed, a number of these have already been started. That solves the Funding And Respondent Total (FART) problem, since the polled population would be sure to get Wind, so to speak, of the Stub-Probe-As-Questionaire (SPAQ) pretty quickly, you can bet. Then all we have to do is sit back and count the All-Fired-Debacles (AFD's) that ensue. Come to think of it, I already did a kind of a pilot study for this, when I noticed a prominent Wikipediot who got stubbed one day — and it took only a few hours for his whole life in wikispace to flash before our eyes and vanish. So let us start our list of Wikipollees like this:
This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 2nd May 2008, 12:44pm |
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 1:27pm
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Regulars Posts: 10,274 Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm Member No.: 911 |
I think that Carolyn Doran and Michael E. Davis are relatively famous people who have somehow managed to avoid the Wikipedia biography routine.
They're certainly more famous than Joe Masiga. Side note -- I was going to include Sue Gardner, but now she has a bio, plus an interesting log on that article. |
|
|
|
| Moulton |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 2:12pm
Post
#13
|
|
Anthropologist from Mars Group: Contributors Posts: 10,220 Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm From: Greater Boston Member No.: 3,670 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Do not try to view the URL in the comment in that log entry. It contains a recursive call to a PDF file that will likely blow away your browser.
|
|
|
|
| Viridae |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:03pm
Post
#14
|
 Fat Cat Group: Regulars Posts: 1,319 Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am Member No.: 1,498 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Wots this got to do with biology (which si the title that attracted me - I know a little something about biology)
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:08pm
Post
#15
|
|
τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Moderators Posts: 6,737 Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am From: Meat Puppet Nation Member No.: 5,619 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 1:03pm) Wots this got to do with biology (which is the title that attracted me — I know a little something about biology). That parses as BIO-LOGGY. LOGGY connotes "logging data" and also "loony, wacky, water-logged, etc." Jon This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:10pm |
|
|
|
| Viridae |
Fri 2nd May 2008, 5:14pm
Post
#16
|
|
Fat Cat Group: Regulars Posts: 1,319 Joined: Sat 19th May 2007, 4:16am Member No.: 1,498 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 3rd May 2008, 3:08am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Fri 2nd May 2008, 1:03pm) Wots this got to do with biology (which is the title that attracted me — I know a little something about biology). That parses as BIO-LOGGY. LOGGY connotes "logging data" and also "loony, wacky, water-logged, etc." Jon Immediately unintertested I'm afraid - RL drunkness > onwiki wronga Vegemite on toast > wiki |
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
Sat 26th December 2009, 4:32am
Post
#17
|
|
τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε Group: Moderators Posts: 6,737 Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am From: Meat Puppet Nation Member No.: 5,619 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Looks like it's time to update this survey again —
Jon  |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th 5 13, 2:08pm |