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

[Milton Roe]

This objection comes up from time to time on the talk page of the wikipedia manual of style page dealing with lead sections.

The initial drive for including information in brackets after the initial subject mention came from from looking at dictionary practice, where of course there are no leads.

So different parts of the MOS came to be maintained by different groups each with regard to their particular piece of name info in the opening sentence.

A particular article as Wikipedia is now may have English, Arabic, French, and Berber. Another may have English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles. In theory, I guess all could have etymology and IPA guides beside each.

The appropriate place for most of this etymological stuff, IMHO, is in the article section just after the LEAD, which is usually the history of the term, and has the dictionary stuff in it. In the LEAD, the IPA and one other most common foreign language alphabet spelling (if that's appropriate) is about all the reader can be expected to take.

Some encyclopedias use no parenthetical information at all after the initial mention of the subject, some use IPA, yet some others use wade-giles, some use footnotes, and so on, but finding an encyclopedia which uses more than two instances of parenthetical information is difficult.

A footnote when these things are not brief is the obvious solution, though Jeandré du Toit dumped some stuff in a box here, having procured SlimVirgin's blessing on a MoS talk page.

Oooohhh the blessing of the Sacred Virgin! This is almost as as good as a Get Out of Jail Free Card in Monopoly. Which is sort of what Wikipedia is (Jimbo already has the hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place, sorry). Or, since we're into the Roman church metaphor, perhaps a gift-card which has a magnetic strip showing you have X $ worth of a pre-paid plenary indulgences. Handy for those really, really warm nights in purgatory. Which there is a version of, on WP. Just ask Science Apologist. He's doing a 3 month-er on nothing but bread and 200c occillococcinum, the poor bastard.

Back when I used to edit (and care), I put some looooong strings of info of this type I came across in footnotes, but they were all reverted pretty quickly.

That's where section II comes in handy.

As an afterthought, I thought it had been recognized in recent times on wikipedia that stuff people say while responding to being blocked should no longer be used against them, it being understood that a heated response is quite a normal and forgivable reaction.

I guess not.

No, the answer is: it depends. If you have WIKIPOWER points, your being angry may serve as a good excuse for outrageous remarks. If you don't, you're expected to just take it, and politely say "Sir, may I have anohter, sir"? It's all in your status.

[EricBarbour]

Georgewilliamherbert is a disastrous figure on Wikipedia, who never participated on this forum, thank goodness. Judging by his awful wiki-antics, I doubt he could manage to complete the registration. Short of the likes of JzG, he's just about as they get, I'm afraid.

I stand corrected---could've sworn he hung around in 2007 (under a different name).

And you're right. He's sneaky, but slimy. I completely forgot about that RFAR.

How does that guy maintain admin powers with so many enemies?
All that flap about Aitias, and yet GWH is at least as bad.

[zvook]

There have been more good ideas and discussion at this thread than my whole experience at wikipedia.

Hopefully this is a good indication to you that you are well out of it. It is a disgusting environment in so many ways, most of which are unconnected with your experience, but which you can acquaint yourself with by clicking round here a bit. The entire culture there is fucked.

I did find your experience amusing though. You posed a good question which required editors reverting you to think and research. It's worth noting that, nominally, long-standing editors are well-placed to do some of the research necessary, since they know the MoS exists and has particular parts dealing with different areas, with archives that show how they developed.

So they had to think, do I agree that this kind of thing disrupts or makes less readable the lead?* That done, they had to think, why do we do this? That done, they had to go into the archives and find that it came, inexplicably, from looking at dictionaries. Then they could find it instructive to go to a bookshelf or library (WR regulars are saying "Yeah right" at this point) and look at what encyclopedias do. Then they could formulate a new practice and propose it at MoS, with your support, so that the MoS changes and something different is done to avoid lengthy and disruptive parenthetical info in the opening sentence.

Whereas a case of what actually happened was, you asked for a response to your good question:

Hey Otebig, any chance you can participate in the discussions at Talk:Kyrgyzstan and Wikipedia talk:Lead section rather than just blindly reverting?

And got told:

If you're looking for simple intros, I suggest you help edit the Simple English Wikipedia.

At which point you told him to go jump, at which point you were "reported" to the "etiquette alert" thingie, at which point you told them to go jump, at which point an admin was attracted and you were blocked, at which point you told him to go jump, at which point you were banninated, and so it goes.

You may think it's simply incompetence that leads to your incivility being dealt with while the substantive issue regarding article content (and how the editors you were incivil to responded to that issue) is ignored, but as Noroton points out, from the wikipedia point of view it's not incompetence at all.

*Actually the best you could hope for is probably "Does this contradict WP:LEAD?" since many long-standing editors, by dint of being long-standing editors, can no longer think without recourse to a wikipedia shortcut. But just as likely is that asking an editor to think about an edit is taken as a declaration of nerdwar, and the editor sets about winning it. Your tone ("Headache inducing clusterfuck" "All that pronunciation, transliteration and translation shit need to be shoveled off to the side somehow") gave the first indication of how such a nerdwar could be won, but it's likely to have been taken as a declaration of nerdwar no matter what your tone was.

[zvook]

No, the answer is: it depends. If you have WIKIPOWER points, your being angry may serve as a good excuse for outrageous remarks. If you don't, you're expected to just take it, and politely say "Sir, may I have anohter, sir"? It's all in your status.

Yep, I know this dynamic well, and I like your formulation of it since it applies just as well to goading newbies as it does to the familiar personæ of wikipedia's regular dramata. I just thought this particular game had been openly rumbled somehow, my error.

The appropriate place for most of this etymological stuff, IMHO, is in the article section just after the LEAD

This works for etymology, which can be delivered in a more-or-less readable sentence structure, but for Tungsten's stream of red it would just contribute to the impression of incoherent unbalanced layout that wikipedia is already famous for. Since I'm somewhat of a "hasten the day" kinda guy at this point, I'd be all for that.

It would probably discourage reversion, as you suggest, since it takes it slightly out of the automaton editing range - the relatively brainless, time-filling editing to MoS standardization so beloved of the wikipedia addict.

Oooohhh the blessing of the Sacred Virgin! This is almost as as good as a Get Out of Jail Free Card in Monopoly

Yeah well one would think it's considerably better than nothing, which is what all the other regular passing objections to this practice receive at MoS. One must generally first make a name for oneself through controversy, admin or otherwise, before one can get movement on an issue. But since de Toit didn't edit a couple of hundred pages afterwards, perhaps with a note here and there about consensus at MoS, this practice didn't stick either.

[TungstenCarbide]

<snip>

You may think it's simply incompetence that leads to your incivility being dealt with while the substantive issue regarding article content (and how the editors you were incivil to responded to that issue) is ignored, but as Noroton points out, from the wikipedia point of view it's not incompetence at all.

*Actually the best you could hope for is probably "Does this contradict WP:LEAD?" since many long-standing editors, by dint of being long-standing editors, can no longer think without recourse to a wikipedia shortcut. But just as likely is that asking an editor to think about an edit is taken as a declaration of nerdwar, and the editor sets about winning it. Your tone ("Headache inducing clusterfuck" "All that pronunciation, transliteration and translation shit need to be shoveled off to the side somehow") gave the first indication of how such a nerdwar could be won, but it's likely to have been taken as a declaration of nerdwar no matter what your tone was.

The admins and long time editors I ran into will take the easy path over the critical thinking/hard work path, every time. They'll slip in sideways insults while simultaneously bludgeoning you 'civility' rules. They'll frantically cling to a piss poor intro that any child can see is fucked because 'that's the way we do it here'.

These people need to be told that they are incompetent idiots.

[Emperor]

Complicated intros are just the way they happen to do things at Wikipedia. What's the point in getting mad about it? If they don't want your help, why are you so anxious to give it?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Ah, "poofiness"... An adjective by which homosexual orientation is given to mean being less worthy than heterosexual desires, that said poofs are to be despised and the label decreed to be offensive to those who are attracted to the opposite sex.

Thereby ensuring that I am not going to be bothered to spend any more time on it.

No no no. Poofy like spongy, air filled, like a marshmallow!

One could liken GeorgeWilliam's activities as admin to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, which is also not a homophobic slur.

[TungstenCarbide]

Complicated intros are just the way they happen to do things at Wikipedia.

No, generally not.

What's the point in getting mad about it?

Stupidity bugs me.

If they don't want your help, why are you so anxious to give it?

Wikipedia dominates the internet. When you search for Kyrgyzstan wikipedia comes up. It's in your face. I'm not interested in 'giving' them 'help'. I saw a shitty into, tried to fix it and was met with monumental stupidity.

Like an old dog, barking at the mailman is significant portion of his daily exercise.

[Milton Roe]

Like an old dog, barking at the mailman is significant portion of his daily exercise.

And sometimes it just makes you feel better.



The old dog barks backward without getting up.
I can remember when he was a pup.

-Robert Frost


Look at the change in meter between those lines. A master.

[EricBarbour]

[GlassBeadGame]

This morning I heard an interview on the radio with the Manhattan District Attorney, Morgenthau, who's 90 and retiring after decades in that job. He mentioned that one of the important ways that criminals reform is by realizing that they've been treated fairly by the system (obviously, I'm not calling you a criminal, but the analogy is obvious). Wikipedia does a really shitty job with that, including in this case, and as a result, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. If you do your part in correcting this, you could go back if you wanted to, assuming you want to go back.

How's that for serious?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing at the injustice of how I was treated. I'm railing at piss poor idiotic introductions that a 10yr old could improve on.

If you go read my reply to Marshmallow George you'll see what I mean. Those idiots are placing a tortured, twisted idea of 'civility' above article quality. Sometimes people need a good swift boot up the ass to try harder. Take that away and you get a mediocre social club. I don't think I've been treated unfairly - wikipedia admins can make whatever rules they want and kick me out if I don't abide.

I asked the guy who owns the article [[Kyrgyzstan]] where to go broach this issue and he couldn't answer. It took me like an hour to find the right style page to go to. Not that it did any good. But in doing so, and in hind sight, it became obvious that there are throngs of marshmallow georges that never make that kind of effort to improve quality - it's hard work.

This objection comes up from time to time on the talk page of the wikipedia manual of style page dealing with lead sections.

The initial drive for including information in brackets after the initial subject mention came from from looking at dictionary practice, where of course there are no leads.

So different parts of the MOS came to be maintained by different groups each with regard to their particular piece of name info in the opening sentence.

A particular article as Wikipedia is now may have English, Arabic, French, and Berber. Another may have English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles. In theory, I guess all could have etymology and IPA guides beside each.

Some encyclopedias use no parenthetical information at all after the initial mention of the subject, some use IPA, yet some others use wade-giles, some use footnotes, and so on, but finding an encyclopedia which uses more than two instances of parenthetical information is difficult.

A footnote when these things are not brief is the obvious solution, though Jeandré du Toit dumped some stuff in a box here, having procured SlimVirgin's blessing on a MoS talk page.

Back when I used to edit (and care), I put some looooong strings of info of this type I came across in footnotes, but they were all reverted pretty quickly. <snip>

Good points. Wikipedia has all kinds of formatting tricks that could help.

There have been more good ideas and discussion at this thread than my whole experience at wikipedia. Admins there seem to spend ten times the effort bludgeoning people with 'civility' than working quality problems.

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty. BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

[TungstenCarbide]

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty.

What exactly may we discuss, your exalted pigheadedness?

...BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

Looking over you own last few posts, GlassBeadGame;

*I don't even understand your arrogant refusal to show any concern or responsibility. Your own entitlement is always more important to you. This is not just political. It is a matter of character. Whatever is wrong with you you need to get it fixed.
*That reminds me, when is the Garrison State going to get a new Senator?
*I thought I would let people construct their own acronym, allowing a fleeting sense of achievement.
*Joyce was a long standing member of the International Collegial Union of Poets.

Is that what you want? For all of us to emulate your idiotic one-liners that, more often than not, have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Oh grand poobah?

GlassBeadGame, You are as stupid as you are hypocritical. Hell, you make the worst Wikipedia Administrators look like geniuses in comparison. How did you manage to become a moderator here anyway?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 8:51pm

[GlassBeadGame]

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty.

What exactly may we discuss, your exalted pigheadedness?

...BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

Looking over you own last few posts, GlassBeadGame;

*I don't even understand your arrogant refusal to show any concern or responsibility. Your own entitlement is always more important to you. This is not just political. It is a matter of character. Whatever is wrong with you you need to get it fixed.
*That reminds me, when is the Garrison State going to get a new Senator?
*I thought I would let people construct their own acronym, allowing a fleeting sense of achievement.
*Joyce was a long standing member of the International Collegial Union of Poets.

Is that what you want? For all of us to emulate your idiotic one-liners that, more often than not, have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Oh grand poobah?

GlassBeadGame, You are as stupid as you are hypocritical.

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

[TungstenCarbide]

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

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?

[GlassBeadGame]

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

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?

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

[TungstenCarbide]

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

Hmm, I'm a wikipedian? Sorry, your pathetic attempt to create a self-image and hang it around my neck failed. Do you think driving 'Wikipedians' from this site will improve it? One? NYB? CharlotteWebb? and so on, all current Wikipedia contributors in good standing...

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 9:19pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

Hmm, I'm a wikipedian? Sorry, your pathetic attempt to create a self-image and hang it around my neck failed. Do you think driving 'Wikipedians' from this site will improve it? One? NYB? CharlotteWebb? and so on, all current Wikipedia contributors in good standing...

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

[zvook]

I'm not sure bumping a three month old thread that you dislike so much makes much sense. Did you confuse two threads? PD just made a more recent one. Tungsten now has ~200 posts here; if you're only noticing him now maybe he's not all bad.

As I said at the time, I think this thread was good for looking at the way you'd expect an encyclopedia to perform, looking at the way WP performed, and looking at the reasons for the difference.

YMMV, naturally.

[TungstenCarbide]

Hmm, I'm a wikipedian? Sorry, your pathetic attempt to create a self-image and hang it around my neck failed. Do you think driving 'Wikipedians' from this site will improve it? One? NYB? CharlotteWebb? and so on, all current Wikipedia contributors in good standing...

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm not sure bumping a three month old thread that you dislike so much makes much sense. Did you confuse two threads? PD just made a more recent one. Tungsten now has ~200 posts here; if you're only noticing him now maybe he's not all bad.

As I said at the time, I think this thread was good for looking at the way you'd expect an encyclopedia to perform, looking at the way WP performed, and looking at the reasons for the difference.

YMMV, naturally.

Good queston. I followed from PDs current thread about TC in which he "gave him a WR Barnstar." Probably better to post there but it shortly drew responses.

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.