Simple English Wikipedia, 50 times smaller, but still more stupid Options

[dogbiscuit]

You guys obviously have nothing better to do than create drama over a project that is doing fairly well as of late. If you were actually doing what Wikipedia stands for (creating articles), even on the English Wikipedia, then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site. Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys. If you have nothing better to do than critize Wikipedia and all of its flaws, then you probably shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia because it would probably be better off without you.

The trouble is that you just do not get it - the project is not doing well, it is dead in the water - it has no direction, no organisation, no idea of what it is trying to achieve.

To me, the really annoying thing is that Simple English, given the aim of the WMF to produce an encyclopedia for educating the dusty child™, is exactly where the Foundation should be focusing its effort. It has the potential to be a well defined and focused effort of manageable scale.

If you went hunting back through this forum, and indeed on English Wikipedia, you'd find I have a pretty consistent position on this. en.WP does not really grasp the usefulness of writing in plain English - they are still in the world where they think that if you write about hard subjects, then of necessity the language must be hard too. However, if you take a view of the Wikipedia process as just some form of data gathering, with a rather dangerously ill-thought through publishing policy tacked on, then Simple English is one opportunity to produce a refined, publishable product out of that gathering exercise.

It seems you might be too young to have had useful experience of working in industry, but the world is littered with companies where their employees run around enthusiastically "doing the right thing" only to fail miserably. Enthusiasm is useless if it cannot be applied with skill, processes, a clear goal of what is needed to be achieved. Some of us wrinklies have a theory that experience gathered over the couple of centuries since the Industrial Revolution might be useful to consider on a project like Wikipedia, rather than taking the rather brave assumption that there is nothing to be learnt from history, or the real world in general.

[Eva Destruction]

You guys obviously have nothing better to do than create drama over a project that is doing fairly well as of late. If you were actually doing what Wikipedia stands for (creating articles), even on the English Wikipedia, then you wouldn't have the time that you do to post posts on this site. Therefore, the people who actually build Wikipedia are even better than you guys. If you have nothing better to do than critize Wikipedia and all of its flaws, then you probably shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia because it would probably be better off without you.

The trouble is that you just do not get it - the project is not doing well, it is dead in the water - it has no direction, no organisation, no idea of what it is trying to achieve.

To me, the really annoying thing is that Simple English, given the aim of the WMF to produce an encyclopedia for educating the dusty child™, is exactly where the Foundation should be focusing its effort. It has the potential to be a well defined and focused effort of manageable scale.

If you went hunting back through this forum, and indeed on English Wikipedia, you'd find I have a pretty consistent position on this. en.WP does not really grasp the usefulness of writing in plain English - they are still in the world where they think that if you write about hard subjects, then of necessity the language must be hard too. However, if you take a view of the Wikipedia process as just some form of data gathering, with a rather dangerously ill-thought through publishing policy tacked on, then Simple English is one opportunity to produce a refined, publishable product out of that gathering exercise.

It seems you might be too young to have had useful experience of working in industry, but the world is littered with companies where their employees run around enthusiastically "doing the right thing" only to fail miserably. Enthusiasm is useless if it cannot be applied with skill, processes, a clear goal of what is needed to be achieved. Some of us wrinklies have a theory that experience gathered over the couple of centuries since the Industrial Revolution might be useful to consider on a project like Wikipedia, rather than taking the rather brave assumption that there is nothing to be learnt from history, or the real world in general.

I agree with pretty much everything Dogbiscuit says here, despite coming from the opposite perspective (I think Wikipedia has problems but is fixable; he thinks it has such bad problems it needs to be wiped and started anew). I want Wikipedia itself to become what Simple claims to be – an easily understood reference guide in which any article can be understood by someone with no (or only the most basic) prior knowledge. A real strength of the hypertext setup is that we can link to explanations of any concept the reader might not understand, and to external sources for those who want to find out more, and consequently don't need to resort to technical explanations and "idiot guides" in the way printed books aimed at the general reader are obliged to. Far too many editors treat Wikipedia as a "look how much useless junk I know!" contest. From what I've seen of Simple, this disease is worse there.

[One]

Agreed. K has exceed the permitted equine-metaphor-per-byte limit, and thus has too much horsepower. In order not to put this cart before his horse, he needs to stop bridling, take the bit, and changes horses in the middle of his stream to get back in the saddle. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:OVERHORSE.

Please stop flogging this dead horse. I don't mean to nag, but it makes you look an ass. (I hope that's clear. I don't want to shout myself hoarse.)

Neigh, Trotsky, it is you doing the hemming and hawing. You're thinking to stirrup trouble and pommel us with some sort of slipshod rumpish humor. But in-steed, it would behoove you to halter, and avoid a deriding joust with His Royal Harness of the Wither-ing Canter, Milton Roe.

It's Milton, by three lengths.

[Eva Destruction]

Agreed. K has exceed the permitted equine-metaphor-per-byte limit, and thus has too much horsepower. In order not to put this cart before his horse, he needs to stop bridling, take the bit, and changes horses in the middle of his stream to get back in the saddle. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:OVERHORSE.

Please stop flogging this dead horse. I don't mean to nag, but it makes you look an ass. (I hope that's clear. I don't want to shout myself hoarse.)

Neigh, Trotsky, it is you doing the hemming and hawing. You're thinking to stirrup trouble and pommel us with some sort of slipshod rumpish humor. But in-steed, it would behoove you to halter, and avoid a deriding joust with His Royal Harness of the Wither-ing Canter, Milton Roe.

It's Milton, by three lengths.

We need to vote on the winner. It would be a gallop poll (I'll get me coat).

[EricBarbour]

Speaking of dead horses.

[Milton Roe]

Agreed. K has exceed the permitted equine-metaphor-per-byte limit, and thus has too much horsepower. In order not to put this cart before his horse, he needs to stop bridling, take the bit, and changes horses in the middle of his stream to get back in the saddle. See WP:OVERLINK and WP:OVERHORSE.

Please stop flogging this dead horse. I don't mean to nag, but it makes you look an ass. (I hope that's clear. I don't want to shout myself hoarse.)

Neigh, Trotsky, it is you doing the hemming and hawing. You're thinking to stirrup trouble and pommel us with some sort of slipshod rumpish humor. But in-steed, it would behoove you to halter, and avoid a deriding joust with His Royal Harness of the Wither-ing Canter, Milton Roe.

It's Milton, by three lengths.

We need to vote on the winner. It would be a gallop poll (I'll get me coat).

Darkhorse Eva nails it. I quit.

[dtobias]

Speaking of dead horses.

I'll pony up for that one.

[groody]

(I think Wikipedia has problems but is fixable; he thinks it has such bad problems it needs to be wiped and started anew).

Well, within certain bounds, wikipedia *might be* fixable. All that needs to be done is:

- Define the bounds (it's currently far too wide), and slash everything outside of that.
- Permaban almost everyone with an admin bit (I'd prefer "take them round the back of the shed and shoot them" but hey)
- Ban anonymous editing
- Ban pseudonymous editing
- Remove all content not attributable to a real person
- Rewrite 99% of what's left to be easily understandable
- Institute editorial panels by subject area to approve and publish content, preferably paid and professional, but at least chosen based on actual real-world knowledge, not on "how long they have been contributing to wikipedia"
- Creation of new articles to be approved by said panels.

That might go some way towards it. Personally, I say it's a cancer on the web, and should be excised.

[Bottled_Spider]

Personally, I say it's a cancer on the web, and should be excised.

What about exorcised as well? Just to be on the safe side.

[dogbiscuit]

I agree with pretty much everything Dogbiscuit says here, despite coming from the opposite perspective (I think Wikipedia has problems but is fixable; he thinks it has such bad problems it needs to be wiped and started anew).

Actually, I am agnostic on the fixable. I believe that if the right management were in place at the WMF, and they accepted the need to wrest control from the mob - while keeping in place some third party arms length content arbitration committee, then I think it would be fixable.

I think it is more that I don't believe that an alternative of the Wiki-model is viable (I hate it when idiots say "fork your own copy") given the dominance of Wikipedia, I'm not sure whether Knol counts or not, I've yet to see a Knol article float to the surface of Google on any of my searches. It either needs a revolution (and there is some signs of a slow change, so it is not inconceivable that the old guard could be kicked out) or a management coup.

If it staggers on in its current irresponsible way with its determinedly wrong-headed pseudo-libertarian ethos, then I do think it is right that it should be destroyed to allow something else to fill the vacuum.

[Moulton]

I suppose it's theoretically fixable, but I prepare for a Noahide flood rather than wait around for Jimbo to fix his baby.

Regarding Google searches, compare the search for "Narcissistic Rage" to the search for "Narcissistic Wounding".

[The Wales Hunter]

Talk about ownership issues!

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...v&oldid=1364582

As a side note: I am the bureaucrat who coordinates this Wikipedia.

Thank you for your understanding --Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[Viridae]

If only I had a rule to get by commas under control.

The use of commas is quite subjective.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...ve_this_project

They have suddenly noticed that simpeWP is a rogues gallery of people blocked from wikipedia for maturity related disruption etc and there is a proposal to stop the flood.

Additionally, betacommand was indeffed again for running an unauthorised bot.

[LaraLove]

I'm impressed that they're cracking down on the bullshit. Good for them. I hope it improves from there.

[Viridae]

I'm impressed that they're cracking down on the bullshit. Good for them. I hope it improves from there.

The thing is so many of that project are banned on wp that i dont think it would ever get the support.

[LaraLove]

I'm impressed that they're cracking down on the bullshit. Good for them. I hope it improves from there.

The thing is so many of that project are banned on wp that i dont think it would ever get the support.

Well, if they go by weight of arguments rather than the en way of percentage, then they still stand a chance.