Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Admin retirements _ TravisTX password scramble

Posted by: weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

Another retirement, this one over the amount of trivia here.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Hardly news, but good that people are now walking out because of it.

The last comment is interesting.

QUOTE

Wikipedia is no longer the Wikipedia I signed up for in 2005, nor is it the Wikipedia I decided to become an administrator for in 2008. I naively expected that Wikipedia would one day become a valuable, well-respected, very useful online encyclopedia, full of notable information. I thought that the articles would be edited by people with knowledge about the subjects and who could provide quality links and references. I expected that, as the project has a worldwide audience, neutrality would be one of the highest priorities.

Well, I was wrong. The vast majority of the “information” on Wikipedia is either non-notable crap, fancruft, or other useless trivia that would never be accepted by a traditional encyclopedia. If I want to read about, for example, Star Trek, I can go to a wiki devoted to everything about the franchise, so why is that crap here? There are countless online resources for every conceivable video game, TV show, series of books, you name it. Sure, Star Trek, Warcraft, and M*A*S*H are acceptable articles, but do we really need an article for every single episode of one of the longest-running television series in American history?

Wikipedia has, over the years, become increasingly fragmented, cliquish, and intolerant. While I don’t find it surprising that a majority of Wikipedia editors identify with the left end of the political spectrum, I am somewhat dismayed at the intolerance for any other political viewpoint displayed by some. I also find that, of the active editors, an unusually large percentage identify as something other than heterosexual. While I don’t identify with those lifestyles, I have no particular enmity toward them either, so long as those lifestyles aren’t forcibly portrayed as mainstream.


Posted by: Alex

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 6:41am) *

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.


Participation in Wikipedia = fun, useful, honorable, patriotic.

Retirement from Wikipedia = silly, unfortunate, dishonorable, disloyal.

Thank you, Alex. I think we've all got it now.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 6:41am) *

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.


Participation in Wikipedia = fun, useful, honorable, patriotic.

Retirement from Wikipedia = silly, unfortunate, dishonorable, disloyal.

Thank you, Alex. I think we've all got it now.

I actually agree with Alex on this one; I think you're misreading him. The way I see it what he's trying to say is:

Retirement from Wikipedia due to a culture of abuse and the unwillingness to recognize the real-life consequences of actions = reasonable

Retirement from Wikipedia because it has too many articles on Star Trek and too many gay editors = not reasonable

Posted by: Alex

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 6:41am) *

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.


Participation in Wikipedia = fun, useful, honorable, patriotic.

Retirement from Wikipedia = silly, unfortunate, dishonorable, disloyal.

Thank you, Alex. I think we've all got it now.

I actually agree with Alex on this one; I think you're misreading him. The way I see it what he's trying to say is:

Retirement from Wikipedia due to a culture of abuse and the unwillingness to recognize the real-life consequences of actions = reasonable

Retirement from Wikipedia because it has too many articles on Star Trek and too many gay editors = not reasonable


Eva has it right.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 9:59am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 6:41am) *

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.


Participation in Wikipedia = fun, useful, honorable, patriotic.

Retirement from Wikipedia = silly, unfortunate, dishonorable, disloyal.

Thank you, Alex. I think we've all got it now.

I actually agree with Alex on this one; I think you're misreading him. The way I see it what he's trying to say is:

Retirement from Wikipedia due to a culture of abuse and the unwillingness to recognize the real-life consequences of actions = reasonable

Retirement from Wikipedia because it has too many articles on Star Trek and too many gay editors = not reasonable


Eva has it right.


I'm sorry, is "too many gay editors" what TravisTX said?

Posted by: everyking

I think complaining that too much information is available to you is a little like complaining that too much money is available to you. I just don't get it. You don't have to read the information if you don't want, and you don't have to spend the money if you don't want, but surely it's nice to have it there anyway?

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:25am) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 9:59am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:42pm) *

QUOTE(Alex @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 6:41am) *

Of all the things to retire over, this one is surely the silliest in my opinion. There's so much worse with Wikipedia than so-called "trivia". I suggest TravisTX gets over it.


Participation in Wikipedia = fun, useful, honorable, patriotic.

Retirement from Wikipedia = silly, unfortunate, dishonorable, disloyal.

Thank you, Alex. I think we've all got it now.

I actually agree with Alex on this one; I think you're misreading him. The way I see it what he's trying to say is:

Retirement from Wikipedia due to a culture of abuse and the unwillingness to recognize the real-life consequences of actions = reasonable

Retirement from Wikipedia because it has too many articles on Star Trek and too many gay editors = not reasonable


Eva has it right.


I'm sorry, is "too many gay editors" what TravisTX said?


It seems that the point he was clumsily trying to get at is that the gay-to-hetero ratio is higher within the wikipedia community than it is nationwide, which results (in his opinion) in a bias in articles in that subject area. Same for liberals-to-conservatives, apparently.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 3:50pm) *

I think complaining that too much information is available to you is a little like complaining that too much money is available to you. I just don't get it. You don't have to read the information if you don't want, and you don't have to spend the money if you don't want, but surely it's nice to have it there anyway?


Generally, too much information is not information. Real information concisely but accurately captures the points that are important.

An encyclopedia is not a form of telephone directory or almanac.

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 2:25pm) *
I'm sorry, is "too many gay editors" what TravisTX said?


QUOTE
I also find that, of the active editors, an unusually large percentage identify as something other than heterosexual. While I don’t identify with those lifestyles, I have no particular enmity toward them either, so long as those lifestyles aren’t forcibly portrayed as mainstream.


Subtitled for the tone-impaired: The bold is said as though it is a problem, and the underlined is said as if such a thing is happening (and, of course, implicitly that it's not mainstream, which can be true or false depending on how broadly you define mainstream)

Posted by: sbrown

Surely the problem isnt too much information. Its the wrong sort of information. Isnt there a law that bad money drives out good? Articles are full of rubbish either trivia or actualy wrong stuff and people who put in good bits get driven away because there experts. Anyway serious people come there look at the garbage and leave without editing.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

I like TravisTX's line about the gay editors: "While I don’t identify with those lifestyles, I have no particular enmity toward them either, so long as those lifestyles aren’t forcibly portrayed as mainstream."

Oh, yeah, I can imagine a bunch of gay guys capturing Travis and subjecting him to the Ludovico Treatment where he is forced to watch a sing-along version of "A Star is Born." tongue.gif





Posted by: WikiWatch

QUOTE(sbrown @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 2:59am) *

Anyway serious people come there look at the garbage and leave without editing.


Or journalists go there and accept what's written as fact ermm.gif

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:07am) *

I like TravisTX's line about the gay editors: "While I don’t identify with those lifestyles, I have no particular enmity toward them either, so long as those lifestyles aren’t forcibly portrayed as mainstream."

"Lifestyles??" - lol laugh.gif rolleyes.gif

There's a flamewar right there in that term, just waiting to break out (if it hasn't already). Those dang heterosexuals and their straight lifestyles.

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 12:53am) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:07am) *

I like TravisTX's line about the gay editors: "While I don’t identify with those lifestyles, I have no particular enmity toward them either, so long as those lifestyles aren’t forcibly portrayed as mainstream."

"Lifestyles??" - lol laugh.gif rolleyes.gif

There's a flamewar right there in that term, just waiting to break out (if it hasn't already). Those dang heterosexuals and their straight lifestyles.


At least he didn't stay "sexual preferences".

So if I, to take one example, like to fuck girls with narrow hips and high cheekbones is that a preference, an orientation, a lifestyle or an illness (or a sin)?

I'm going to ponder that one, in deep prayer.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Obesity @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:09pm) *

So if I, to take one example, like to fuck girls with narrow hips and high cheekbones is that a preference, an orientation, a lifestyle or an illness (or a sin)?

I'm going to ponder that one, in deep prayer.

You, Mr. Fat Guy, are definitely going to hell!! tongue.gif

(Bring marshmallows! wink.gif )

Posted by: Viridae

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 3:15pm) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:09pm) *

So if I, to take one example, like to fuck girls with narrow hips and high cheekbones is that a preference, an orientation, a lifestyle or an illness (or a sin)?

I'm going to ponder that one, in deep prayer.

You, Mr. Fat Guy, are definitely going to hell!! tongue.gif

(Bring marshmallows! wink.gif )


s'mores or whatever they are called.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:02am) *
It seems that the point he was clumsily trying to get at is that the gay-to-hetero ratio is higher within the wikipedia community than it is nationwide, which results (in his opinion) in a bias in articles in that subject area.

I wonder how one would go about proving such an assertion? I mean, I do believe that we can say this is somewhat true, based purely on anecdotal evidence and general impressions. But if it comes down to actual statistics, I doubt you could actually prove it conclusively.

Even if you could, it's still a matter of opinion as to whether "they" are doing anything objectionable. Then again, when they start forming drag-queen ABBA tribute bands, it's kind of hard to "assume good faith."

QUOTE
Same for liberals-to-conservatives, apparently.

Well... that's just because of the younger demographic, IMO. Personally I expect that to change over time, but then again, it obviously also depends on how you define "liberal" and "conservative."

Personally, I've always been of the opinion that WP attracts the extremes and the crackpots, as well as those who specialize in opposing them - and in so doing, it alienates the moderates and rationalists, sort of like the two-party system in the USA. This particular case is probably just burnout. I'm sure he's a nice guy, if you meet him in person...

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 1:15am) *

You, Mr. Fat Guy, are definitely going to hell!! tongue.gif

(Bring marshmallows! wink.gif )

Listen, you eccentric lesbo, a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNXS4gA09KM:

QUOTE
When I die, fuck it, I wanna go to hell
Cause I'm a piece of shit, it ain't hard to fuckin' tell
It don't make sense, goin' to heaven wit the goodie-goodies
Dressed in white, I like black Tims and black hoodies
God will probably have me on some real strict shit
No sleepin' all day, no gettin my dick licked
Hangin' with the goodie-goodies loungin' in paradise
Fuck that shit, I wanna tote guns and shoot dice

He doesn't say anything about marshmallows, but I feel empowered to extrapolate.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Obesity @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 10:54pm) *

He doesn't say anything about marshmallows, but I feel empowered to extrapolate.

laugh.gif Awesome!

Posted by: Obesity

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 1:46am) *

This particular case is probably just burnout. I'm sure he's a nice guy, if you meet him in person...

Yeah, everyone's a "nice guy"--especially if blissfully ignorant neighbors are to be believed--cannibals, rapists and craigslist killers, not that this fellow is one or more of any those things.

SlimVirgin used to like to make the point that if you took 2 Wikipedians who despised one another online and teleported them to some pub, they would get along splendidly over a pint of suds. Yeah, well anyone can get along with a stranger for an hour or two; big fucking deal!!!

It's only when you become a repeat or steady customer (marriage/roommate/cellmate) and that persons starts to get comfortable that you truly start to perceive the stench of another human being.

And people on Wikipedia get real comfortable, real fast. And those that have been in WP for years are like inbred, unwashed mutants, with an odor so putrid that it fascinates. They make themselves at home, as it were.

Posted by: zvook

QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 6:15am) *


(Bring marshmallows! wink.gif )


The Fat Man gets all the chicks, damn his devilish insouciance. Not to mention all the marshmellows.

Posted by: Casliber

Funny - I glazed over all the lifestyle stuff and noted the link to Black Kite's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&oldid=290706880

thing is, WP is a big place, and it is very easy to go somewhere else to edit for a while. The trenches can get pretty draining
Cas

PS: Hmm, Fatman, your computer has odorama? (like in Polyester...) Cool...I will make sure I eat less baked beans, egg and/or garlic, or other sulphur containing compounds....


Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(zvook @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 3:33am) *
The Fat Man gets all the chicks, damn his devilish insouciance.
The Fat Man's the kind of guy who, when your girlfriend leaves you for him, makes you feel deep down that she sort of had a point.

Posted by: sbrown

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 6:19am) *

And people on Wikipedia get real comfortable, real fast. And those that have been in WP for years are like inbred, unwashed mutants, with an odor so putrid that it fascinates. They make themselves at home, as it were.

Hey can you give barnstars here? This sure as heck deserves one. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Lar

QUOTE(sbrown @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 7:55am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 6:19am) *

And people on Wikipedia get real comfortable, real fast. And those that have been in WP for years are like inbred, unwashed mutants, with an odor so putrid that it fascinates. They make themselves at home, as it were.

Hey can you give barnstars here? This sure as heck deserves one. biggrin.gif


Like this I think

-----------------
Image blah blah blah
-----------------

But don't start that here please.


By the way, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_Barnstar.png didn't work. maybe it should.

edit: neither did the wp link. can some mod fix it? thx

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 9:12am) *
By the way, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_Barnstar.png didn't work. maybe it should.

Sorry - you have to link to the actual file, not the file's wiki-page (i.e., click on the image itself and then copy that URL instead)... There's no high-compatibility way to get the image's "raw" URL from the wiki-page without having the server download and pre-parse the HTML - I don't believe you could do it in JavaScript only (though I could be wrong about that). If you knew ActiveX was available, you could do it easily enough with the MSHTML/MSXML API's, but of course you can't always know that.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(sbrown @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 5:55am) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 6:19am) *

And people on Wikipedia get real comfortable, real fast. And those that have been in WP for years are like inbred, unwashed mutants, with an odor so putrid that it fascinates. They make themselves at home, as it were.

Hey can you give barnstars here? This sure as heck deserves one. biggrin.gif


Oh, shit.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

QUOTE(sbrown @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 12:55pm) *

QUOTE(Obesity @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 6:19am) *

And people on Wikipedia get real comfortable, real fast. And those that have been in WP for years are like inbred, unwashed mutants, with an odor so putrid that it fascinates. They make themselves at home, as it were.

Hey can you give barnstars here? This sure as heck deserves one. biggrin.gif

Please God no

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 4:01pm) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 23rd May 2009, 9:12am) *
By the way, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_Barnstar.png didn't work. maybe it should.

Sorry - you have to link to the actual file, not the file's wiki-page (i.e., click on the image itself and then copy that URL instead)... There's no high-compatibility way to get the image's "raw" URL from the wiki-page without having the server download and pre-parse the HTML - I don't believe you could do it in JavaScript only (though I could be wrong about that). If you knew ActiveX was available, you could do it easily enough with the MSHTML/MSXML API's, but of course you can't always know that.


Actually I have already explained how to do this using a new tag like "[wpimage]". Let me find the thread...

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Fri 20th March 2009, 5:54am) *

if you wanted to make a [wpimage] tag, a break-down of the url is something like this:

server + "/" + project + "/" + language + "/thumb/" + md5(filename)[0] + "/" + md5(filename)[0, 1] + "/" + filename + "/" + width + "px-" + filename

(SVGs change format so ".png" is added e.g. "/8/85/Smiley.svg/100px-Smiley.svg.png")

Obviously the filename would have to be normalized (strip extra spaces, change to underscores, capitalize first letter) before doing the md5 or it may fail.

The trick would be to guess which images are "local" on enwiki and which ones are on commons. these would use different directories as both could potentially exist with the same title. Maybe best to just use two different tags "wpimage" and "commonsimage"...



QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 21st March 2009, 10:15am) *

Oh I'm just saying if you wanted to add a new tag that works like this:

[wpimage name="Foobar.jpg" size="240"]

and chooses the correct thumbnail image from the wp server, instead hunting it down manually like this:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Foobar.jpg/240px-Foobar.jpg[/img]

it would actually be fairly easy to do. The only potentially confusing part is figuring out how to correctly guess the hash digits before the filename in the url in order to correctly link to the actual image file.


Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 22nd May 2009, 3:50pm) *

You don't have to read the information if you don't want, and you don't have to spend the money if you don't want, but surely it's nice to have it there anyway?

Signal-to-noise ratio: an alien concept to wikipedia…