Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ Hans Adler Comments on Wikipedia

Posted by: Milton Roe

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=253291032#David_Gerard

Thus saith Hans Adler (T-C-L-K-R-D)

QUOTE(Hans Adler)


I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.

Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.

Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008


N.B. My thanks to Fences and windows (T-C-L-K-R-D) for putting these in rule-form on a subpage, thus drawing my attention to them, since I read all subpages on WP. wink.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fences_and_windows/Adler%27s_Laws_of_Wikipedia

Posted by: Dr. Blofeld

evilgrin.gif Aye aye, "We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system". Delusions of grandeur...... Now try telling that to those who do nothing but expand the ever growing list of Pokemon charatcers and insist that we keep articles on lists of Power Rangers.... As long as wikipedia remains open to anybody to tamper with it, it is clearly never going to have any integrity. Pay professionals to write articles about solid encyclopedic subjects (which is not in self-interest like a company of self bio though) and we might get somewhere.

Posted by: gomi

"Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved ..." -- what in the world is that? Is he complaining about good writing? About well-researched and objective prose? Is this guy for real?

Looking back at Adler's contributions to knowledge, the most recent non-trivial edit to a page seems to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eco-terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=311816080, his personal, unreferenced, and unsupported opinion regarding the definition of eco-terrorism, a term (rightly or wrongly) well-defined by law-enforcement officials. So we have yet another sanctimonious prick using Wikipedia to push his own opinions on an unsuspecting world. Yeesh.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 17th September 2009, 1:37pm) *
Is this guy for real?
He is. But his comments here are clearly made with his tongue other than in the middle of his mouth.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Thu 17th September 2009, 9:40am) *

QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 17th September 2009, 1:37pm) *
Is this guy for real?
He is. But his comments here are clearly made with his tongue other than in the middle of his mouth.

Yes. Please remember this entire statement is facetious/sarcastic. The comment "Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it." should clue you, among many other things.