The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Notable Editors FAQ
Herschelkrustofsky
post Thu 24th January 2008, 10:01pm
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The basic guideline for assigning a Wikipedia editor "notable editor" status is that the editor in question has had at least 5 threads devoted to his or her conduct in the regular "editors" forum. If you believe that a new editor qualifies, please contact a staff member or initiate a discussion here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mndrew
post Sat 23rd February 2008, 10:43pm
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat 14th Jul 2007, 5:42am
Member No.: 1,948



Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Sat 23rd February 2008, 10:55pm
Post #3


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sat 23rd February 2008, 10:43pm) *

Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.

There are of course plenty of good, well-intentioned admins on WP. Human nature being what it is, we get few threads about them. Were we to have six threads about say Taxman, it would certainly be appropriate to give him a forum.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mndrew
post Sun 24th February 2008, 10:04am
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat 14th Jul 2007, 5:42am
Member No.: 1,948



QUOTE(guy @ Sat 23rd February 2008, 5:55pm) *

QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sat 23rd February 2008, 10:43pm) *

Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.

There are of course plenty of good, well-intentioned admins on WP. Human nature being what it is, we get few threads about them. Were we to have six threads about say Taxman, it would certainly be appropriate to give him a forum.
With that in consideration, Cla68 qualifies for such a thread. He has seven threads in Editors, two of which are already in the JzG board. I'll go ahead and vouch for a Cla68 forum.

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 24th February 2008, 10:17pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sun 24th February 2008, 2:04am) *

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.
Our primary mission is to expose and criticize corruption at Wikipedia. I'm all for giving credit to the good guys there (who are good primarily because they, too, are not afraid to expose and criticize the corruption.) However, there have been expressions of concern that we are cluttering the site with too many subfora, so I think that it's unlikely that we will start any "good guys" subfora at this time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 24th February 2008, 10:53pm
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 24th February 2008, 2:17pm) *

QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sun 24th February 2008, 2:04am) *

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.
Our primary mission is to expose and criticize corruption at Wikipedia. I'm all for giving credit to the good guys there (who are good primarily because they, too, are not afraid to expose and criticize the corruption.) However, there have been expressions of concern that we are cluttering the site with too many subfora, so I think that it's unlikely that we will start any "good guys" subfora at this time.


Thank you. Also, again can you please add these "Editors" on the notorious list... "Walloon", (The ring leader), "Will beback" "Jzg" and "DTobias" (Yes, he did and does want inflamitory statements).
Thank you Herschelkrustofsky.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mndrew
post Mon 25th February 2008, 3:15am
Post #7


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat 14th Jul 2007, 5:42am
Member No.: 1,948



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 24th February 2008, 5:17pm) *

QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sun 24th February 2008, 2:04am) *

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.
Our primary mission is to expose and criticize corruption at Wikipedia. I'm all for giving credit to the good guys there (who are good primarily because they, too, are not afraid to expose and criticize the corruption.) However, there have been expressions of concern that we are cluttering the site with too many subfora, so I think that it's unlikely that we will start any "good guys" subfora at this time.
Would a split into the "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" be advisable at all? They could either be contained both in Notable Editors, or the Notable Editors forum scrapped and those two forums placed in its former nest.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 25th February 2008, 12:01pm
Post #8


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



QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sun 24th February 2008, 10:15pm) *
Would a split into the "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" be advisable at all?

"Nothing is Good or Bad, but Thinking makes it so." —Shakespeare

"Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error." —Taoist Proverb
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WhispersOfWisdom
post Mon 25th February 2008, 1:12pm
Post #9


Lee Nysted
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed 8th Aug 2007, 12:58am
Member No.: 2,310



QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 25th February 2008, 8:01am) *

QUOTE(Mndrew @ Sun 24th February 2008, 10:15pm) *
Would a split into the "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" be advisable at all?

"Nothing is Good or Bad, but Thinking makes it so." —Shakespeare

"Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error." —Taoist Proverb


"To each his own"

Choosing good, evil, or the lesser of two evils, would be tantamount to becoming like Wikipedia.

Anyone can edit and choose who is evil and who is good? No decision would make everyone happy.

I think the people that run this site have the final say in what direction we are going but I suspect that being a site that is critical of the ways in which Wikipedia operates, necessarily precludes us from starting to hand out awards for being "not so bad." The WP users that stand out as beacons of hope are nearly all, either banned, or on probation, or at the very least, shunned by the cabals / flies. The rest are still operating in a vacuum and living as fake puppets of their real life identities. unsure.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Mon 25th February 2008, 1:22pm
Post #10


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



WoW hits the nail on the head. I've been described on WR as "One of the good guys" but I know there are also people here who think I'm an arrogant abusive blocker of The Truth, and there are plenty of people (think Giano, think Kelly Martin, think Vintagekits) who are thought of by some people as great crusaders for openness on Wikipedia, and by others (or sometimes even the same people) as disruptive trolls. Even if someone thinks the good guys should be rewarded, noone would ever agree on who the good guys are, and there's always going to be someone who loathes your particular candidate for "good guy".

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Mon 25th February 2008, 1:34pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 25th February 2008, 1:24pm
Post #11


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



The problem arises when one takes a continuous axis and arbitrarily splits it into two halves, with dramatically different treatment for opposite sides of the dividing line.

That practice, it turns out, is mathematically unwise.

Details here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Mon 25th February 2008, 1:38pm
Post #12


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



"There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Mon 25th February 2008, 2:01pm
Post #13


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 25th February 2008, 1:22pm) *

Even if someone thinks the good guys should be rewarded, noone would ever agree on who the good guys are, and there's always going to be someone who loathes your particular candidate for "good guy".

Yes, we saw that with the poll on straight shooters.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Mon 25th February 2008, 9:08pm
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(guy @ Mon 25th February 2008, 6:01am) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 25th February 2008, 1:22pm) *

Even if someone thinks the good guys should be rewarded, noone would ever agree on who the good guys are, and there's always going to be someone who loathes your particular candidate for "good guy".

Yes, we saw that with the poll on straight shooters.

It is NOT about "Good" or "Bad" guys. It is about what is incorrect and agendas. What is correct and accurate is correct, what is not correct is not correct. Everything else is irrelevant.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th 9 14, 5:41pm